Is there a way to reposes or make them pay for an item the butter never paid for?

[Zigner]

While the California Judicial Council website is find and dandy, why not look at the actual law?

Then you go on to repeat what I said and what the site I posted said

 

[Zigner]

...and that you believe I said it is required.

... in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing.

A gracious person would acknowledge their error and move on. I'll wait to see it

 

[mightymoose]

I now consider the matter closed.

Yet you are still carrying on.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Moose, this is exactly what you wrote...

Send him a non-threatening notice in writing of your intent to sue in small claims court for non payment

...you then went on to write...

, but here in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing.

Had you simply admitted you were wrong when Zigner gave you the link, I posted the actual text of the link or zddoodah showed you the actual law this would have ended.

 

[mightymoose]

The problem here is that I was not wrong. It is extremely common to issue a demand letter prior to civil suits, if not the most common way to make a demand. My use of the word "letter" was apparently so egregious it was worth torpedoing a thread with irrelevant nonsense. My comment was taken as an absolute requirement and was deliberately removed from the context of the OP's question for the sole purpose of arguing.

For the OP, a demand letter, especially coupled with the filing papers as also suggested, could result in action without having to go to court or file anything.

 

[Zigner]

The problem here is that I was not wrong.

Then you go on to explain that your earlier statement was wrong by explaining that...

It is extremely common to issue a demand letter prior to civil suits, if not the most common way to make a demand.

...which is not what you originally said.

 

[Zigner]

For the OP, a demand letter, especially coupled with the filing papers as also suggested, could result in action without having to go to court or file anything.

I think we can all agree with that.

 

[mightymoose]

Then you go on to explain that your earlier statement was wrong by explaining that... ...which is not what you originally said.

No... It's all the same, but where you want to find an argument you will.
If I said, " I have to drive to the store", you would want to argue that I don't "have" to. Someone else could go, or maybe I could choose to walk or ride a bike, or perhaps I could go to some other destination instead. However the underlying message of needing to go pick up a gallon of milk would be lost on you.
No, I have not modified my original statement, you are just coming to understand what I said

 

[mightymoose]

I think we can all agree with that.

And since that is all that was ever said to begin with we should have never gone down this hole.

 

[Zigner]

No... It's all the same, but where you want to find an argument you will.
If I said, " I have to drive to the store", you would want to argue that I don't "have" to. Someone else could go, or maybe I could choose to walk or ride a bike, or perhaps I could go to some other destination instead. However the underlying message of needing to go pick up a gallon of milk would be lost on you.
No, I have not modified my original statement, you are just coming to understand what I said

SMH
"... in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing" clearly means that it is one of the things that you must do. Had you meant that it was optional, you would have said something like "... in CA, a demand must be made on the other party prior to filing. You can do this by sending a demand letter, or even just making a verbal demand." I get it though...you misspoke. We all do it. I'm sorry that you are so stuck on yourself that you can't just acknowledge your misstatement.

You can either acknowledge it like a gracious person, or choose to continue your flailing around trying to make your own words mean something different than what they clearly say without acknowledging your mistake. I know what I'd do...how about you?

 

[mightymoose]

SMH
"... in CA a demand letter is one of the steps to follow before filing" clearly means that it is one of the things that you must do. Had you meant that it was optional, you would have said something like "... in CA, a demand must be made on the other party prior to filing. You can do this by sending a demand letter, or even just making a verbal demand." I get it though...you misspoke. We all do it. I'm sorry that you are so stuck on yourself that you can't just acknowledge your misstatement.

You can either acknowledge it like a gracious person, or choose to continue your flailing around trying to make your own words mean something different than what they clearly say without acknowledging your mistake. I know what I'd do...how about you?

I didn't misspeak, I said exactly what I intended to. You misunderstood and decided to go way off base with it.
If it is easier for you, just refrain from responding to my comments, especially if you are going to go off on a tangent.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

You can either acknowledge it like a gracious person, or choose to continue your flailing around trying to make your own words mean something different than what they clearly say without acknowledging your mistake.

We know which one the Moose decided on.

 

[adjusterjack]

I've asked you people to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Thread closed.