pcoj80
May 1, 2009, 02:33 PM
A former friend has decided that he is no longer responsible for the repayment of a loan that I extended to him. Although there exists no initial contract, the reasons for this are explained in the points below. Further evidence is also enumerated. Do I have a winning case in a California small claims court?
• The absence of a legal document indicating the existence of the $500.00 loan which I extended to him, and enumerating the conditions of repayment by the agreed-upon date of December 31, 2008 is the result of his failure to comply with the conditions we had discussed on the date that the loan was extended. On good faith, and because he was going to be married only two days following his receipt of the loan funds, I placed the responsibility to produce this document in his hands. He failed to do this, despite his later-demonstrated ability to have sent such a document via e-mail. One month later, I addressed this point to him in writing, in a message delivered to his e-mail account. At this point, he published no attempt to dispute this claim.
• He has confessed the existence of this loan to at least one person who has agreed to testify to his confession in a court of law.
• I have a written record of demanding payment on this loan, dating back to October 2008. (The loan was extended in September.) Because these demands were never disputed, either to me, during the five-month period following publication of demand to March 23, 2009, to our employer (we are co-workers), under whose supervision he claims that I was displaying a “sick obsession,” by repeatedly referencing a loan which he now denies, or to any legal authority, he has established no history of denying the existence of this loan.
• All along, he had claimed that he could not reply from his e-mail account because he accessed the internet over his cell phone, and could not enter text. But because this was, in fact his e-mail account, as was evidenced from his reply from said account in March, 2009, he has demonstrated the ability to have denied the existence of this loan in writing.
• His eventual denial on March 23, 2009 can be shown to be a response to his misperception that I had threatened to tell his wife about the loan. This had never been my intention, as can be demonstrated both through the text of the message I had sent him on March 19, 2009, and through my written reply to him within four hours of his response to this message.
• After this demand was published in October, 2008, he were seen making a partial repayment of this loan. In so doing, in November, 2008, I believe that he made a public acknowledgment of the demand that he later denied. A witness can testify to this fact.
• His e-mailed denial on March 23, 2009, can be shown through his own words to have been in response to his belief that I had told other people of his default. Not only am I not responsible for the spread of this truth, but I attempted to curtail it on several occasions, and several witnesses have agreed to testify to this fact.
• In this e-mail message, he confessed to attempts to malign my character and my mental stability among my fellow employees. The allegations he made were false, and this fact can be proven based, in part, on the above information.
• Also in response to this threatened counter-argument (I am crazy and obsessed with him), I am able to offer concrete examples of the history of obsessive behavior he has displayed targeting me. From his initial interview with our employer, in which he would not stop talking about what a “good guy” I was, to his repeated requests that we hang out together, despite the fact that I turned him down for months on end, to the fact that when we finally did go out, I judged it necessary to make certain that we go to a bar where I knew the bartender, and that I felt the need to change my plans to go home that night so that he would not be able to find out where I live, to the fact that in October, 2008, he complained to a fellow co-worker of ours that I had “stopped talking” to him, I am able to prove that not only were his obsessive advances unwelcome, but that my responses repeatedly indicated my desire to escape them. Witnesses have agreed to testify to each of the above statements regarding his behavior.
I have retained copies of each of these e-mail messages.
In January, I extended an offer to him via e-mail, whereby $180.00 of the $500.00 loan would be forgiven. As was made clear in this message, this $180.00 forgiveness was contingent upon his saving money and making a single payment of $300.00 at his earliest convenience. I also served him, in the presence of a witness who had read the document, and is prepared to testify to its placement in his hands, a written notice of default and repayment contract. This notice was withdrawn later this same afternoon on good faith that he would produce his own repayment contract. (His father is a paralegal.) In the same message in which I extended the offer of partial forgiveness, I indicated that I did not need to receive this document from him. This statement on my part was based on my faith that he would save money in order to partially repay the loan at his earliest convenience.
In March, he sent to me a message from his e-mail account. In this message, he disavowed the existence of the loan. Because his denial of the existence of this loan indicates that he is not saving money in order to repay, and because his agreement to repay was the basis for the $180.00 forgiveness offer, Do I have basis for revoking this offer?
Furthermore, because my withdrawal of the notice of default and repayment contract was based on his production of a similar document, because I excused his production of this document on faith that he would save in order to partially repay the loan, and because in the e-mail message he sent to me in March, he denied the existence of this loan, whereby indicating that he held no intention of repaying, do I have basis to reinstate the original notice of default and repayment contract, including the fees enumerated therein for late repayment?
Do I have any basis for action regarding his confessed attempts to malign my character and mental stability at work? (Nobody believes him.)
Thank you
• The absence of a legal document indicating the existence of the $500.00 loan which I extended to him, and enumerating the conditions of repayment by the agreed-upon date of December 31, 2008 is the result of his failure to comply with the conditions we had discussed on the date that the loan was extended. On good faith, and because he was going to be married only two days following his receipt of the loan funds, I placed the responsibility to produce this document in his hands. He failed to do this, despite his later-demonstrated ability to have sent such a document via e-mail. One month later, I addressed this point to him in writing, in a message delivered to his e-mail account. At this point, he published no attempt to dispute this claim.
• He has confessed the existence of this loan to at least one person who has agreed to testify to his confession in a court of law.
• I have a written record of demanding payment on this loan, dating back to October 2008. (The loan was extended in September.) Because these demands were never disputed, either to me, during the five-month period following publication of demand to March 23, 2009, to our employer (we are co-workers), under whose supervision he claims that I was displaying a “sick obsession,” by repeatedly referencing a loan which he now denies, or to any legal authority, he has established no history of denying the existence of this loan.
• All along, he had claimed that he could not reply from his e-mail account because he accessed the internet over his cell phone, and could not enter text. But because this was, in fact his e-mail account, as was evidenced from his reply from said account in March, 2009, he has demonstrated the ability to have denied the existence of this loan in writing.
• His eventual denial on March 23, 2009 can be shown to be a response to his misperception that I had threatened to tell his wife about the loan. This had never been my intention, as can be demonstrated both through the text of the message I had sent him on March 19, 2009, and through my written reply to him within four hours of his response to this message.
• After this demand was published in October, 2008, he were seen making a partial repayment of this loan. In so doing, in November, 2008, I believe that he made a public acknowledgment of the demand that he later denied. A witness can testify to this fact.
• His e-mailed denial on March 23, 2009, can be shown through his own words to have been in response to his belief that I had told other people of his default. Not only am I not responsible for the spread of this truth, but I attempted to curtail it on several occasions, and several witnesses have agreed to testify to this fact.
• In this e-mail message, he confessed to attempts to malign my character and my mental stability among my fellow employees. The allegations he made were false, and this fact can be proven based, in part, on the above information.
• Also in response to this threatened counter-argument (I am crazy and obsessed with him), I am able to offer concrete examples of the history of obsessive behavior he has displayed targeting me. From his initial interview with our employer, in which he would not stop talking about what a “good guy” I was, to his repeated requests that we hang out together, despite the fact that I turned him down for months on end, to the fact that when we finally did go out, I judged it necessary to make certain that we go to a bar where I knew the bartender, and that I felt the need to change my plans to go home that night so that he would not be able to find out where I live, to the fact that in October, 2008, he complained to a fellow co-worker of ours that I had “stopped talking” to him, I am able to prove that not only were his obsessive advances unwelcome, but that my responses repeatedly indicated my desire to escape them. Witnesses have agreed to testify to each of the above statements regarding his behavior.
I have retained copies of each of these e-mail messages.
In January, I extended an offer to him via e-mail, whereby $180.00 of the $500.00 loan would be forgiven. As was made clear in this message, this $180.00 forgiveness was contingent upon his saving money and making a single payment of $300.00 at his earliest convenience. I also served him, in the presence of a witness who had read the document, and is prepared to testify to its placement in his hands, a written notice of default and repayment contract. This notice was withdrawn later this same afternoon on good faith that he would produce his own repayment contract. (His father is a paralegal.) In the same message in which I extended the offer of partial forgiveness, I indicated that I did not need to receive this document from him. This statement on my part was based on my faith that he would save money in order to partially repay the loan at his earliest convenience.
In March, he sent to me a message from his e-mail account. In this message, he disavowed the existence of the loan. Because his denial of the existence of this loan indicates that he is not saving money in order to repay, and because his agreement to repay was the basis for the $180.00 forgiveness offer, Do I have basis for revoking this offer?
Furthermore, because my withdrawal of the notice of default and repayment contract was based on his production of a similar document, because I excused his production of this document on faith that he would save in order to partially repay the loan, and because in the e-mail message he sent to me in March, he denied the existence of this loan, whereby indicating that he held no intention of repaying, do I have basis to reinstate the original notice of default and repayment contract, including the fees enumerated therein for late repayment?
Do I have any basis for action regarding his confessed attempts to malign my character and mental stability at work? (Nobody believes him.)
Thank you