Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Exposing Verizon's FiOS Fine Print Trickery » Nothing new
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
« Verizion et al  
AuthorAll Replies


dispatcher21

join:2004-01-22
united state


1 edit
reply to kherr
Re: Nothing new

I also thought that a federal court stated that arbitration clauses were invalid.

Edit: Here is one story I found on the court case »www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2···ion.html I am sure there are more.


CConverse

join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY

Who cares if there are arbitration clauses anyway? Most ISP TOS basically remove all responsibility from the companies as far as honest service provision and billing goes. Even if you tried to sue them, you'd lose because the companies' TOS states that if (insert complaint here) occurs, It's not their fault and the end user is responsible. If there even is an anti-arbitration clause, it's probably put in there to stop the whiners from wasting everyone's time and money.

Unreasonable

join:2007-10-15
Portland, OR
·Integra Telecom
·Comcast

Wow.

You really have NO knowledge of contracts.
I'm no lawyer, but we all have to deal with contracts.

The stuff in the TOS is the company's stated position.

It has zero force of law unless and until it's vetted through the courts. And it's a guaranteed fact that most clauses in these formula contracts would never ever be upheld by any court.

The arbitration clause is just a scare tactic to try to dissuade you from more formal legal remedies where the balance of power shifts to the weaker party.

Your best protection is to agree without ever reading the documents.

Since this is common practice, and the writers of these contracts know this, and take steps to promote keeping the other party in the dark, the odds of them ever being able to enforce any of it are remote.

Having the contract online further advances the consumer's position. Normally, both parties would have the opportunity to edit the contractual documents until a satisfactory 'meeting of the minds' is reached.

With an after the fact 'agreement' presented in a way to make negotiation impractical, I have no doubt that any court would toss it with a quickness.

If I were ever in a dispute, I would simply take the position that the agreement was entered into under duress, there was no meeting of the minds, and that it's null and void.

I would decline any arbitration attempt and proceed with civil action unless the other party were to make me whole.
Forums » Exposing Verizon's FiOS Fine Print Trickery« Verizion et al  


Monday, 09-Nov 18:20:32 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [64] VoIP Over 3G Still Not Working For iPhone
· [49] Verizon Keeps Swinging At AT&T
· [28] Bill Would Force ISPs To Block Financial Scams
· [15] Mediacom Hints At 50, 100 Mbps Speeds
· [12] Clearwire To Get Another $1.5 Billion
· [9] 15 States Have Now Gotten Broadband Mapping Money
· [5] AT&T Launching New 7.2 Mbps 3G Modem
Most people now reading
· Google Has Acquired Gizmo5 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· My cat is reluctant to exercise. [General Questions]
· Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus [Security]
· How in the world am I going to get into college? [General Questions]
· Divorce advice... [General Questions]
· Blown out Ballasts [Home Repair & Improvement]
· A fishy CRTC tarriff filed by bell? [TekSavvy]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· [WotLK] Shaman tier 10 is out [World of Warcraft]
· [ TV] Bell TV raising rates on January 1st 2010 [Bell Canada]