1. What role does the doctrine of precedent play in this case? Which of the earlier cases discussed by this court are actually binding upon it?
2. Do you think that this outcome is fair, or do you think that it gives the debtor too much of an opportunity to avoid his debt? Who is this Act supposed to protect? Explain.
3. Procedurally, what will happen next in this case? Why can't this court simply resolve the case itself, instead of sending it back down to the lower court?

Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Gonzalez ("Gonzalez") allegedly failed to pay his Sprint PCS Wireless cell phone bills, totaling $448.97. Sprint turned the consumer debt over to US Asset Management Services, Inc. ("US Asset"), which in turn used the services of Defendants Appellees Mitchell N. Kay ("Kay") and the Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, P.C. ("the Kay Law Firm") to collect the debt. The Kay Law Firm sent a collection letter to Gonzalez, which Gonzalez asserts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA or the Act"). * * *