Legal Opinion

Duncan v. Nichols

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided October 10, 1994No. 2239Published

1Opinion of the Court

Howard, Acting Judge:

This is an action seeking damages for representations contained in a collection letter alleged to be false, misleading or deceptive under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 et seq. (1982). The jury returned a verdict for Nichols (Debt Collector). Duncan (Consumer) appeals certain alleged errors in the jury instructions. We affirm.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regulates conduct undertaken to collect a debt. § 1692c. Under § 1692g, a debt collector is required to send to the consumer a written notice containing the following:(1) the amount…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blackwell v. Professional Business Services of Georgia, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1981
  2. Check Central of Oregon, Inc. v. Barr (In Re Barr)District Court, D. Oregon · 1984
  3. Moore v. Ingram & Associates, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1992
  4. Woods v. RabonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1988
  5. Sadler v. Pure Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API