Elizabeth Peter versus GC Services L.P; DLS Enterprise

Elizabeth Peter believed that a debt collection agency had broken the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act after receiving a letter from the agency. She as a result complained about these violations, but the case was never brought to court. Following a summary decision, Elizabeth Peter's lawsuit against the three partners (debt agency) was dismissed on the grounds that they were not responsible for any wrongdoings by GC services. As such, Peter lobbied for an appeal of the case to have a full trial because partners are supposed to be responsible for any violations committed by any of the partners. Therefore, the appeal seeks to address whether there was a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) by the debt collector against Elizabeth Peter and hence a fair trial for her.

Issue 1: did the envelope in which the letter was sent violate the FDCPA?
Rules: The law used to address this issue is based on the fair debt collection practice act, which outlines the format and language to be used when debt-collecting agencies communicate with the consumers through mail and telegrams. According to a section of this article, the letter fits the requirements about mail communication and therefore no violations by the three partners (collection agency). However, the envelope in which the letter was sent does not meet the requirements of section of the article, which prohibits impersonation of government agencies.
Analysis: the three partners did not violate one section of the FDCPA because they included all the required information in the letter. As well, the Act has a section, which exempts the use of benign language. According to FDCPA debt collectors are supposed to use their details to avoid impersonation. Even though, the collection agency used the address from the department of education as the return address thus violating the section, which prohibits impersonation of government agencies (in this case department of education). Consequently, the envelope has violated the FDCPA.
Conclusion: Envelope violated FDPCA.
Issue2: were GC financial and DLS enterprise liable for the infractions committed by GC services?
Rules: the law used to deal with this issue is the partnership law. Under the partnership article, one section dictates that general partners are responsible for any violations committed by the partnership unless the claimant states otherwise. Consequently, any infraction committed by any of the partners is a joint responsibility of all the partners.
Analysis: the defendant, in this case, involves a partnership between three corporations, GC financials, DLS Enterprise and GC services where the first two companies are not debt collectors. As such, the two corporations argue that they have not violated the FDCPA since the violations involved GC services only. However, these two corporations are in partnership with GC services. Consequently, this relationship makes them general partners. According to the partnership act, general partners have a role to play in all obligations of the partnership. As such, this makes GC financial and DLS Enterprise violators of the FDCPA.
Conclusion: Partners were liable.