of its claims by a preponderance of the evidence, as it would in any civil trial on the merits, suggests that the hearsay character of LVNV’s affidavits should not be ignored. 6 . In fact, counsel for the Debtor objected to the hearsay character of LVNV’s submitted affidavits both in its written objection to LVNV’s original proofs of claim and orally at the hearing. 7 . Although LVNV attached to its pleadings a redacted spreadsheet listing the Debtors’ account information and balance, the Court will not presume that this is the same "Receivable File” described in the bill of sale between Sherman and LVNV; and this Court will also not presume that the spreadsheet submitted by LVNV came from the elusive "Disk” supplied to Sherman by Citibank. Indeed, pp.-Tyler 2006, pet. denied)
holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that recovery is allowed when as a result of defendants breach of contract or tortious activity the plaintiff is required to either defend itself or bring an action against a third party holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff