Owen buys a restored 1969 Dodge Charger from Prime Restorations Inc. on credit but makes no payments on the account. Quentin, the owner of Prime Restorations, calls Owen at home on a Monday morning at three A.M. Quentin represents himself as RiteNow Collection Agency and demands payment "or else." The next day, Quentin sends Owen notice that he has thirty days to request verification of the debt, during which its payment will be suspended, but that if he does not pay the full amount due within five business days, Quentin will arrange for the "destruction of Owen's good credit rating." Which laws has Quentin violated, if any, and in what ways?

Quentin, the owner of Prime Restorations, is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Quentin can attempt to collect the debt to Prime Restorations without being subject to the provisions of the FDCPA, which applies only to debt-collection agencies that regularly attempt to collect debts on someone else's behalf. But by misrepresenting that he is acting on behalf of a collection agency, Quentin has fallen under an exception in the FDCPA. Causing Owen, or any other consumer, to believe that Quentin is a representative of a collection agency subjects Quentin to the law.
The FDCPA prohibits contacting a debtor during an inconvenient or unusual time, which Quentin has done in this problem with the early morning call. If the "or else" phrase is construed as harassment or intimidation-as a threat of potential violence, for example-Quentin will be in further violation of the FDCPA. Also, the statement in the notice that Owen has thirty days to request verification of the debt but only five business days to pay it violates the FDCPA. The five-day demand is misleading and nullifies the thirty-day suspension.