Supposition, Presupposition and Presumption
This post covers some of the overlooked words that can be used to great effect when you deal with a debt collector. Learn them, use them and sit back laughing.
What is Supposition?
To give an example of supposition…
a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis: they were working on the supposition that his death was murder | [ mass noun ] : their outrage was based on supposition and hearsay.
We always see supposition in the DCAs purchase of a debt. In that transaction but more specifically the result of that transaction they [the DCA] suppose (presume, expect, believe, think, be of the opinion, suspect, guess, surmise, reckon, conjecture, theorize, deduce, infer) that you actually legally owe a debt to them. We can confidently make claim to this as supposition on part of the DCA as at no time has a DCA ever been able to provide proof that a burden of contract existed between them and the alleged debtor prior to the purchase of the alleged debt. If they had actual factual evidence of a burden of contract prior to purchase they would simply provide this evidence when requested to do so. It’s not rocket science.
We cannot put forth a counter argument (though we never argue with a DCA) or question the DCA on their logic until they have made a claim that is founded upon their supposition. We wait for them to do this via their Notice of Assignment (NOA). At this point in this post it may be of benefit if you have read the post on logical fallacies as these two topics go hand-in-hand. As mentioned many times on the site and in the guide, the Notice of Assignment from the DCA is pure gold for you.
If we examine the NOA from the DCA it invariably states in one form or another that you owe a debt to them… this being their claim against you. Again, they need to make a claim against you in order to have a claim against you. Once written on paper you have a document setting out a claim by the DCA that you can refer to constantly that rebuts almost every single claim/statement a DCA makes towards you. The NOA is that document. In order for the NOA to stand as truth it needs to be validated by supporting facts and evidence or it is just a piece of paper worth no more than the sum of its parts. It’s an often overlooked and misinterpreted statement that something “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on“, as without supporting facts and evidence a NOA has no value to a DCA. Like Bill Clinton once said “the [United States’] constitution is just a piece of paper“… how correct he was.
The NOA is in all cases a fantastic document. Not only does it force the DCA to comply with specific statutory obligations but it also gives you one of the most important pieces of ammunition against the DCA. The NOA is so good that it actually has both supposition and pre-supposition built right in to it for you to use at will.
What is Presupposition?
To give an example of presupposition…
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action: both men shared certain ethical presuppositions about the universe. | [ mass noun ] the action or state of presupposing or being presupposed.
For a DCA to suppose you owe them a debt it must first be established that there was actually a debt owed in the first place… a foundational argument you could say. So in our example here it can only be presupposed that a debt was owed by the alleged debtor to the alleged original creditor for the DCA to have actually purchased an existing debt. Again, we can confidently make claim to this as presupposition on part of the DCA as at no time has a DCA ever been able to provide proof that a debt existed prior to the purchase of the alleged debt. If they had actual factual evidence of the existence of a debt prior to purchase they would simply provide this evidence when requested to do so.
When we boil it down to the two main points a DCA is trying to convince you of we get:
1 We suppose you owe us a debt because it is 2 presupposed there was a debt owed in the first place.
Absent of any evidence or facts to prove both of these points the claim by the DCA that you owe a debt is based on nothing but conjecture.
A practical example of both…
Another great example of both supposition and presupposition being presented to you (as an alleged debtor) is when a DCA “provides” you the terms and conditions it is claimed you agreed to when you [for example] obtained credit. Should these terms and conditions not have your signature or initials on the document we have just witnessed the double whammy so to speak.
It is common practice for a DCA to provide as “proof” of contract the general terms and conditions of credit/lending/finance etc that is just downloaded from the original creditors website. But do these terms and conditions mean anything at all? The short answer is no… because there is presupposition that you agreed to any terms and conditions that gave rise to those they have presented to you. Read this private members forum post for more detail on this. The DCA supposes that the terms and conditions apply to you but they have made a presupposition that you agreed to some terms and conditions that allowed you to be bound by any future revision to those terms and conditions.
What is Presumption?
To give an example of presumption…
an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability: underlying presumptions about human nature.
• [ mass noun ] the acceptance of something as true although it is not known for certain: the presumption of innocence.
A presumption can be viewed simply as the “wrapper” that contains both a supposition and in most cases a presupposition. We use presumption in our process to get you out of debt and the best part of this is we don’t need to prove our presumption. As the DCA has made all of the positive assertions/claims and statements pertaining to their claim of debt against us, we simply use the presumption that they will have in place all of the required documentation, proof and evidence etc to support/validate their claim.
We can make whatever presumption we wish with regards to their claim as long as those presumptions are inline with their claim, for example:
- We can presume they would have done due diligence prior to their purchase to ensure a debt was owed to the original creditor
- We can presume they can prove a debt was owed to the original creditor
- We can presume they would have a deed of assignment
- We can presume they would be able to provide this deed of assignment as proof of debt ownership
- We can presume they are the holders in due course to the original instrument
- We can presume they have the means to prove they are the holder in due course of the original instrument.
Once you are aware that a DCA (or anybody) has made a supposition, being any claim made that is not supported by evidence nor facts, all you need to do is find out why they made such a supposition and call them on the presupposition. No DCA will ever object to you making presumptions in their favour, that is of course until you ask them to prove those presumptions as fact and that’s when things start to get sticky for the DCA.