Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


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

dispatcher21

join:2004-01-22
united state


1 edit

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

Re: Nothing new

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

Re: Nothing new

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  


Tuesday, 01-Dec 02:55:17 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [57] Baltimore To Ban Lazy Cable Installs
· [47] Broadband Killed The Game Console
· [33] Rural Carriers Quickly Embracing Fiber
· [28] AT&T Top Lobbyist Cicconi Has His Feelings Hurt
· [24] Charter Exits Chapter 11
· [21] Midcontinent Socked With Easement Lawsuit
· [3] Monday Morning Links
· [2] Monday Evening Links
Most people now reading
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Is Microsoft Technet ok to use for my family PC's? [Microsoft Help]
· persistent connection to qw-in-f113.1e100.net on boot [Security]
· [Snow Leopard] NFS Mounts - no more Directory Utility [All Things Macintosh]
· Why is VoIP Better than POTS? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Considering Leaving Vonage, who should I Consider? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· [WIN7] Outlook express under Windows 7? [Microsoft Help]
· Opening a file download dialog from a JavaScript function. [Webmasters and Developers]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]