@RobertEG wrote:
I never saw any offererd terms by the creditor referreing to any CR deletion of their pirior reporting to the credit file.
The word delete was never used as related to credit files. The word used was cleared. That, to me, logically refers to reporting of the debt.
The primary focus on any unpaid debt is clearing obligation for the debt.
They "cleared" the debt from credit reporting, by update to the debt status to $0 owed.. However, clearing a debt never, in and of itself, eitther implies or mandates deletion of prior derogs that led to the ultimate payment.
That is your opinion based on your own criteria and not on any legal foundation. It would also seem like you also do not see eye-to-eye with Webster's:
Definition of CLEAR
* to make clear or translucent;
* to free from pollution;
* to free from accusation or blame : exonerate, vindicate <the opportunity to clear himself;
* to free from what obstructs or is unneeded: as (1) to erase stored or displayed data from (as a computer or calculator) (2) to remove from an area or place.
Examples of CLEAR
* The sky cleared after the rain.
* The weather is cloudy now, but it's clearing gradually.
* The morning fog gradually cleared.
* When the smoke cleared, we could see that the building had been completely destroyed.
* The water cleared after the mud had settled.
* My skin cleared when I started using the cream.
* They cleared timber from the land.
* She cleared everything out of the closet.
* I'll clear those books out of the way.
* The police ordered the crowd to clear the area.
In areas of ambiguity, courts like to do simple things like -- surprise, surprise -- look up terms in the dictionary. Courts also like to use a standard based upon "the reasonable man" or "expectations of a reasonable man" approach. Reasonable people use a dictionary. Reasonable people take words at their face value in an advertisement, claim or offer. Most importantly, reasonable people expect that an offer to clear a credit record involves more than something the creditor is legally, without exception, required to do in any event once paid.
Now maybe you have personal expertise in suing people where judges have ruled that subterfuge, ambiguity and a play on words was an accepted practice. If you do, please give us specifics. Otherwise, I hope you have a really high limit on your AmEx card because I am going to have to start charging you for these fundamental legal concepts and basic legal education classes.
The simple legal fact is that subterfuge and misleading statements are actionable. I'll try to put this in the simplest form possible:
If one relied on the statement "YOUR CREDIT RECORD MAY BE CLEARED FOR THESE UNPAID CITATIONS" when paying the creditor expecting a deletion and said deletion did not occur, there is a better-than-decent chance of winning a lawsuit against the creditor -- especially if it is a collection agency or non-governmental body.
