how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
246 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | Buyer Beware Hey, bad business decisions have CONSEQUENCES. The government shouldn't be playing watchdog here. The people that signed their name should be the ones holding the ISP accountable for delivering the service. If they can't, you break the contract with a Breach clause. If you aren't providing me X service reliably X amount of time, then our contract is nullified. Fight it in court. However, it's not the government's mess to clean up. It's the person or committee that had the stupid notion to lock themselves with a company for 75 yrs and any other ignorant entity that would do or has done the same. Simple. | |
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | The typical problem is that those that use the service are not those that set up the contract.
Housing/tract developers sign deals (similar to mello-roos) where the developers purchase the land from the city and do all the buildouts themselves, then charge it up to the home purchasers almost like 'rent'. HOA is responsible for maint of the services under contract with the developer.
Streets, TV, Telephone, water, etc. Your nieghborhood becomes a private community owned by investors and not part of the city.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| En.
Still my point. The people signing the deals (whether it be a builder, tenant association, etc), need to hold the ISP responsible. They need to tell them that if said services are going to be delivered as promised, renters or owners are free to breach their service as a result of failure to comply with the contract. Should these entities refuse to get involved, I would class action the builder and the ISP with everyone who has internet, and sue for damages. Sure it might be expensive, but odds are, you will prevail. A jury is probably going to be sympathetic with people who were locked into a service and cannot get out, even when the service DOES NOT work. Problem with that, it might take years to litigate. The best solution here would be to have everyone cancel their service, and deal with dialup a few months. This company won't stick around if no one is using their service. Theyd be more apt to sell it off as being nonprofitable. Either way, there is recourse, it just depends on how quick one wants it and who is willing to go after whom. | | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | said by jc100:A jury is probably going to be sympathetic with people who were locked into a service and cannot get out, even when the service DOES NOT work. Not only is this not true, it's really accurate.
To assume that juries don't also have people sympathetic of the business as well (remember, juries have business owners and investors in them too) is simply incorrect.
Additionally, they can be sympathetic all they want towards the consumer, the verdict still must be in the confides of the law. I'd be curious to know of what damages they'd sue for? If the service is sub-par, they can cancel. If they can't get any other service, they knew that when they moved in. I say this because these are all relevant facts that would be introduced in the case, I'm sure.
Do also know that I TOTALLY do NOT support these types of development contracts. I think that every home should have access to every provider that services that city, town, or county area. The one exception I have to this are apartment buildings and complexes. They remain private property and I believe they should be able to choose who they want on their property. (Apartment complexes are not public property and their borders end at the street and not inside their complex boundaries) I still remember moving into a condo complex for rent where cable was available in the neighborhood, however, our complex chose to feed us with a SMATV (in house 13 channel satellite system) instead. But I knew that going in and made the choice to live there anyway.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| I am sure they can sue on several tenants under the law.
1) Breach of contract
2) Non performance and inability provide said promised services
3) False advertising and denying customers services.
My guess, a good lawyer could make a list here and find multiple ways to toss in punitive damages into this contract law. How come? Well non performance is a reason to break a contract. Yet, false advertising is a crime. Touting yourself as able to give something without being able to do it is not allowed. If this company has in writing they will provide the service, and customers are going without, they can at least collect all past subscription fees or most back. Not to mention, a good lawyer could say customers have suffered as a result of their misleading developers into believing they were capable of living up to their promises.. etc etc. Trust me, good lawyers can do ANYTHING... | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to jc100
however this is a good reason to avoid HOA's devlopments if possible.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
