NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to morbo
Re: idiots
Is it fair to charge 62k when the actual costs for data, services, support etc, may only total tens of dollars not thousands. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | unfortunately yes. this isn't about that issue though. it's about a contract and the terms of the contract that spells out cost for international roaming, etc. |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| I don't think so. If it were about that he would not have been able to get his bill reduced with an attourney. I think its more that if they intend to charge you an insane amount for a service then they really should not offer that service. The price he was charged is unreasonable and should never have been on the table. Even in a contract.
As you know, completely imbalanced contracts are illegal. At least in Michigan.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
xpkranger
RIP Georgia Theater
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| I'm not an attorney (but I do work for attorneys, [sarcasm]so naturally I'm an expert [/sarcasm]) so I can't speak to the legality of imbalanced contracts. Seems like a reasonable thing to do, but I would think that it would inherently leave itself open to too much interpretation.
I think it is very possible that the telco could have been in every manner well within it's rights to charge the giant bill, but when he statred squawking to the media and got an attorney who gets paid to squawk, the telco simply made a business decision not to press the issue. It would have cost them more in bad press than they could have possibly made from this one consumer. This way, the telco can look merciful and even magnanimous to this pitiful consumer.
--
The early bird may get the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese. |
|
