that that reason was to leave in the reader's mind and back the question about whether you could change your mind and sue your honor that is an interpretation  think that i don't think that the language about the age of the debt was necessary to make this to take us out of the realm of question of fact but i do think that bringing up a characteristic of the debt that was not going to change suggested it was some sort of limitation and the plaintiff at least the right of himself agrees that's the way he read again your honor we're not mr tuckey is anybody pay in response to this type of letter i think some people do your honor i don't have why isn't that evidence why isn't that evidence then that it's confusing and mislead some people because you would not pay in response to this unless you were misled or confused or worried to be the worst kind of death i've ever seen but how much did you guys pay for this one nine hundred dollar account i don't know you i would be very interested to know that if the case if any further proceedings are needed but this was twenty year follow up on something judge wrote or said a few minutes ago that i merely creating any ambiguity ambiguity which is your best position in this case that the ambiguity itself indicates that the  letter is misleading your honor i think because nobody else would pay in response to i think you're reading the process of the question of fact and again i would point to the fact although it doesn't i greet us when the case for us there's on unsophisticated consumers input in the record and that unsophisticated consumers the plaintiff was a sophisticated enough to have gone to a lawyer well ok fine but also sophisticated enough to say i know you can't sue me because if you could you would that's an interpretation i don't know whether that survey would have showed the same thing but that interpretation suggests that our interpretation is one of the reasonable ones  is quite clear and the plaintiffs in this case is not argued otherwise that a debt remains i debt and remains of even after the statute of limitations expires that is the law in pretty much every state i've ever looked at including illinois and i've looked at a few others and that is why it is not illegal to try to collect on it this are you saying that this is a collectible yes it seems to me that his debt was already settled for good by you can't sue on it if the statute of limitations has expired but you can ask and that's what this letter did and this letter allayed the plain just the fear that these cases the cases like man talk about by telling the plaintiff that he would not be sued and telling him why which i think is just an add on that is the concern here a person who knew he wasn't going to be sued wouldn't be concerned as concerned about why he would be sued and there is no to collect it the letter implies that you have simply chosen not to sue your other accounts and i respectfully disagree i think the letter tells him that he can't be sued i understand that it might be interpreted the way you're talking about but the difference between cannot and will not is not enough of a difference to take this case out of the notion of a question of fact how much does a consumer survey cost you know i don't know that your honor i've never met mr hector may know because when they're done they tend to be done by plaintiffs more often than for sure my recollection from cases where they were presented was on the at least ten thousand usually more than twenty thousand and that was now some years ago your ah yes your honor so in essence what you are you going for it here is an impossible burden no i don't think so your honor in this court in a number of cases has said why don't you do surveys to try to prove this you know  class actions can support that i would say you may be lucky that this was not a classic you're out of plaintiff's lawyers faced prospect of front and cost and don't forget if they win then they get it back so that's a little bit of an incentive to go ahead and take the risk if you think the case is worth the plaintiff's lawyers have front costs all the time they have to pay for experts and met now cases where legal mal cases or securities cases sometimes you have to spend money upfront well we're damages are a thousand dollars though it's fair and your are depends on the payments they may if they make one as they make what the sixty dollars payment but suggested the one that if they make payment in accordance with the plans that were proposed in the letter then i suppose the consideration is that the rest of the dec the would you then in pune a very good position your client would be in a very good position to say you've accepted our offer and so we now have new ground to a contract to pay let's  see a total of five hundred eleven dollars i may seventeenth and you owe nothing more if you but because you can reach that do agree no your honor there wouldn't be a new agreement because one of the terms of that agreement would be were not breached that new agreement there would be the payment would be made in the context of saying i've made this payment and you've told me by the snow that we're good your letter says once the full settlement debt although i think there's some ambiguity in there but about whether they whether that payment isn't a promise to make the let's say the payment is forty five dollars down i meant and that's a promise to pay  about the consequences of making a certain set of defined payments says nothing about what would happen if you make a difference of course it doesn't say that if you explained what was happening and how old the debt was and what legal conses were nobody would make  response and it's under illinois law if you don't have an express agreement you don't restart the debt you have an express agreement however for example with a forty dollars payment to pay sixty dollars consecutively for the next twelve months low down payment of sixty five years one of the proposals is to make a series of payments but the letter doesn't say anything about making a paper with of another time and so i don't think you could apply a new town name it seems like the  and uncollectible under the statute of limitation you are not incorrect that it was an collectible are the statute of limitations i guess he could have decided to pay it on his own but there would have been absolutely no close a serious problem if it is your car i would agree that this is exactly why these kind of letters need to disclose the exact legal rights of the consumer they need to be able to make an informed decision  i would liken it to participating in a you know if they could trial it in a research hospital you have to have informed consent before a choice can be made in this situation mr parents are any other consumer who would receive this exact letter  the one that sort of balance appendix page nineteen can would have no idea that you know they had rights in the situation so let's say they ignore the letter and then a subsequent lawsuit is filed they wouldn't even be able to begin to articulate an affirmative defense without some knowledge that it exists is that are you aware of any evidence mr character as to whether payments are made in response to this form of a letter no i'm not your honor how much would a survey cost  my sense would be at least ten thousand dollars i we have no not had to conduct one yet but i have done some initial looking and it seems rather expensive especially for an individual  again and i would argue that again the p r he has chosen to use this language in this letter there is the as judge gellman notes the acid acceptance consent or that would have allowed it you know that uses language that's survey to gas at the meaning of language it's not there you have to and that doesn't seem to be very conducive to a survey that sounds like really bad science  i know of that says that when the issue is liability particularly when the issue is going to be the view of and i think that a collective concern that the burden of a class action plaintiff is different from the burden of an individual plaintiff that would be a very strange state to try to collect on the debt and debt even after the statute has run the debt is owed in the industry judge hamilton people do not sue on time or death it doesn't happen never i can't say it's never happened but it's an industry practice and we do a lot of work in that area they don't do it it's not worth it because i thought there were no other reason that it's not worth it i thought the f t c did look into that old law take a closer look at it  and finally your honor the asset acceptance agreement is not a case it does not hold that language is required what is required is that you tell a point if that is what is required  plaintiff but he's not going to be sued and that's what this letter did and that's how he interpreted and while i agree with mr hector that that's not conclusive it's the only evidence from any consumer incorrect that great addresses