the next case is eighteen dash one zero four two mary barr battles versus greystone alliance carcass or who outsources all collection activity can be adjudged to have its principal purpose the collection of any debts such that it is subject to the fair debt collection practices act and the answer is no before you do that can i just interrupt f because the way this case comes to us on surf occasion i want to see if you agree with me that the first issue are the terms debt collector and creditor mutually exclusive under the f t c yea that's no longer on the table because of our decision and tucker correct correct your honor we are not arguing that point here today and then secondly does henson require a finding the crown is not a debt collector in this case there was a third party buyer of the debt and the debt was in default at the time it was used by congress in sixty nine hundred eighty six that would require a crown to fall outside of the definition of that collective and i'll get to that in one moment but the other reason why it requires it is what henson also did which this court recognized in temper and  has recognized that the fact that the account was purchased in default is a relevance so what would this court lisa do is go back to the words of the statute which the district court did not do and what's important is because we post henson aquinas specific words that directly engage in the activity of collecting debts and you're your opponents understand this to be well is this is this your goal whether it's done by you or by someone else so let's focus in on the text why do you think 's that accompanies principal purpose is the collection of debts the way the case law has defined principal purpose is what is that company's essence what is their main purpose for a purpose or some well let's start with a shark tomorrow congress outlaws collection of done indirectly it's the collection of any debts right this is an argument about whether purpose means personal or directly and you've got a textual point that there are other provisions that say during the regular collects has directly or indirectly so why should we why should we understand it that way sure your first point is exactly as you noted if we focus on what is the tangential benefit through indirectly of others it is writing in direct into the principle purpose definition that does not exist there it is adding words to a statute and renders the regularly collapse phrase super for us but seconds it is focusing on the collection of debts collection is not defined as an accumulation here we're not talking about the acquisition our congress wasn't regulating acquisition assuming for a minute that the dunning calls and letters were improper under the f t c just grant that permit but why wouldn't the outsourcing of that illicit behavior be precisely the evil that principal purpose wasn't it issue there i mean that that was a that was it's subsection two case that's not at issue here so we're trying to get our arms around the principle purpose of which is the collection of any  how do we know that's a verb i mean some people collect baseball cards some people collect stamps your client collects debts and i think her past is worse because if i congress i want to impose liability to keep you from trying tracting with aggressive not running away from the fact i think actually principal purpose of collection is not a path of third party is not inferring the benefit from a third party congress while i understand grant you're on of the point why it may not be the most favorable position to be able to take in front of a case of person question because we have not had a single case where says a company has is now in a post hands and world is both a creditor and debt collector why should the fact that they simply are the owner outweigh for vicarious liability purposes the fact that there about the principal purpose of m t s business being the collection of dance we explained that that was namely defaulted obligations which purchases for municipalities m t f exist solely for the purpose of holding irrelevant you're powerless the current boss did not address the first aspect that caused whether it whether that entity was a creditor because that has since been changed based on has and so this court didn't have the opportunity to consider how does it address the intersection between those two issues there's nothing in and admittedly suppose speaking to the regularly collapse definition has addressed is that congress wasn't focused on those default the debt parts of congress wasn't regulating those and its knees by regulating a company that simply purchases an account into fault and then go ahead and hire the most unscrupulous entities or those companies are being regulated that's easy to speak to them the f c c covers them but in addition states have passed laws on this position as well because the f c c ca does not contain any preemption and in fact client is not for example identity that it collects the mortgages and then is free hacking them for a secondary market it's not simply an acquirer of that and then doing something different but that it's limited liability in everything but that doesn't really help us with i mean that this language is you know the principal purpose of which is the collection many debts were not limited to the core perform like saying that a landlord is not in the if all landlord is doing is collecting the rents and doing it via the building manager it seems odd to say limo is not in the business of leasing properties you are sometimes if i make answer that question briefly i think the best way we can respond to that is look to what the supreme court has had  the definition it is in the for another part of the definition because it picks up people that perform services that materially facilitate debt collection always for another but who do not receive the money in this cord similar decision the language in direct was specifically held to encompass a person that went to the debtors home and insisted that they can tact the collector but did not themselves doing the collecting directly no because if you look at the substance of provisions of the f t c p a a number of them apply to people that facilitate collection  information about how to contact the debtor to pretext and deception the western union was not engaged in the receipt of money but it was nevertheless held to be engaged in debt collection activity so it serves a substantive purpose and is not necessary in the principal purpose portion of the definition because i think that focuses in on the source of revenue it does s without the implicit argument made by the crown here is they had if the debt collection is actually done by independent can tractors as opposed two employees it is somehow not attributable to crown and that's just wrong although essentially all liability under the f t c v a s vicarious all debt collection is conducted by entities both now and in one thousand and seventy seven when the act was passed the question is whether under the roar of agency the human beings that are actually engaging in the collection activity whether their activity should be attributable to crash or that's helpful i mean human beings that means they weren't collectible that's correct i thought we don't want to we don't want to deformed the statue for purposes of collectability right i mean that's not your right but your argument is that i guess under the text of the statute the principal purpose of this company is the collection of that is correct because all of human activity which is legally attributable to it under the law of agency is collection activity filing lawsuits sending of dunning letters is that in concert it's forty two f three fourteen twenty one and it brought the distinction between employees agents who are independent contractors and people such as the company you hire concrete who may be referred to as contractors but are natural agents they do not represent the principal they do not act in the name of the principal or on behalf of the principal and they don't things for the principle like collect money authorized in any deviations from acceptable conduct are forseeable even if even if the crown doesn't tell turning or how to do its business even if crown has no involvement in in the manner in which under traditional because liability sometimes principals are held liable even when they forbid me to do certain conduct you want to import that full bore do you think that if they say do not use a false name do not send harassing letters do it in this manner and the collection agency goes a little above and beyond that does it in a manner they were told not to do you think the crown meant as a manager can still be held liable for that the test would be whether the deviation  foreseeable in the case of sending a bad collection matter yes it's forseeable that debt collectors do it because there are thousands of cases involving exactly that and it would be incumbent upon the crown in order to avoid liability to do things like review the letters and make sure that they are in crowns opinion compliant then do you focus on or build their expertise around  of income and the and one hundred percent of the human actions which are engaged in on behalf of something like crown involved debt collection then they are a debt collector their business  investment in debt is not a business it's like purchase of an inventory inventory of what in order to set you have to sell it you have to liquidate it you have to do something with it in order to turn it into money which is i think the test of a business it's a alright we agree on that and that then it means it's no answer to say that collecting debt is not a business it is not elected it is a business but purchasing debt without further explanation is not a analogous federal statutes if you're aware the cure's liability treatment under the fair credit reporting act or similar set are yorkies your position that it's just the reasonable foreseeability and so broad agency liability and nothing else comes to mind but i believe that it is it would be co ordinating to you said that it was applying general common law federal common law principles to determine when a is liable for an independent contractor agents misrepresentations of origin i believe under the lanham act here they are anything other than independent bona fide separate company given the fact that they went out of business and we have to dismiss them in that illustrates a problem if the party w who receives the funds crown gets to hire outside companies and thereby shed liability is has a very strong incentive to hire the most aggressive and irresponsible companies out there you can find a lot of them for example in buffalo new york they conducted really aggressive collection activities and then when the authorities go after them or private litigants go after them close business and the altogether and i think that what needs to be done is first look at the source of revenue of the defendant in the if one hundred percent of the source of revenue is the liquidation of consumer gets then it is a principal purpose debt collector f i don't understand the statute to require finding by this court a vicarious liability in order to make a ruling that crown is a debt collector because its principal purpose is the collection state laws are insufficient we needed additional viability in addition to some of that most of the state laws were passed after one hundred seventy seven they don't and this is  form the meaning of the congressional language adapted in the year and many cases states because they are regulating both creditors in debt collectors do not need to me make fine distinctions between the man the collectors because both both of those categories were regulated by the state therefore it is of lesser importance than here where if the f t c p a doesn't apply to crown nothing does and the the discovery as is the extent of their collection activities the percentages of revenue from that as opposed to other activities that that part of their their business now entity with the name bank in it in fact has a bank charter for the so purpose of gauging debt collection you don't you don't get passed a motion to dismiss a man but what about things be a debt collector under the principal purpose test plans or would have to allege as pacific tracks making a plausible they had the principal purpose fifty plus percent of the defendants a pivotal consists of debt collection as opposed to the extension of credit the receipt of payments each month from people that do not require collection activity the sale of debt or other things which do not involve debt collection so no i don't hand if if if that the debt collection for the critical purpose i mean that they are actively engaged is in those on these one way or the other that  i would not consider the receipt of the loan payments by chase mortgage company to be debt collection it is a bank of business to make the loan you collectively ordinary course purpose at the time you we originally or you first are involved with the loans furthermore as a practical matter by the by the time about when their intent at the time they went into business was not the acquisition of defaulted debt which is w can i start by asking if we do find that your client is a debt collector then the case goes back and i assume you defend the case by saying look our challenge practice does not involve an attempt to collect the debt is the act the fines it in fact we don't even have a challenge practice because we don't do anything except hire third parties in prong for the f t c create a defendant is violated provision in attempting to collect a debt you would say we hear again we've done nothing except hire a third party and we don't manage them we don't tell them how to do their jobs and we are literally ignorant of how they do their work that's why we pay them right that's why you're if you were to collect the data yourself you wouldn't give ten or twenty percent some third party you keep all the money yourself right you know i think your question highlights exactly concern vicarious liability issue now just record this record right your honor the court certified us for an important issue because of the ways of resources that was about to come down the pike which is including crown then would not be liable because the all the remember that increasingly in conclude that for purposes of statutory interpretation you are a direct line there without addressing one way or the other the hearer's liability question because i speaking only for myself see them is as different inquiries one is a federal statutory interpretation inquiry and the other is a state common law inquiry i think the problem  honor i think yes i recognize that as a guy who a policy of the concern as i mentioned earlier that pos didn't take into account because it was pretense and that crown does have a side definition creditor so it doesn't have the opportunity to explain why one matters more than the other but one portly the reason unscrupulous companies that that by the debts and then hire shady fly by night characters who then fold and are judgment proof so if we went down the road of saying there couldn't be because here is liability we would be encouraging now maybe that's not in the statute maybe that's not first result now and maybe there's not a record but it makes this at least hesitate before seeing the can't be to curious liability to your point your honor this exact argument that was raised and has in case of the court