karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| But the customer SIGNED a contract
If the original terms of the contract specified UNLIMITED, then by all means, I would expect the customer to keep using it as much as they want. Why does it seem to me that the megacorps can change the contract any time they want, ALWAYS to the detriment of the customer, but the customer is not allowed to force them to live up to the terms of the ORIGINAL CONTRACT. If I had signed up for a 2 year unlimited plan, then by all means, I would use it as much as I could for the 2 years. THE FACT THAT THEY CHANGED THE TERMS does NOT INVALIDATE the ORIGINAL CONTRACT. Period. Maybe they won't let you renew your contract with the same terms, but the original contract which was signed should be FORCED to stay in effect until the end. A contract is an agreement between 2 parties, and 1 party can't just arbitrarily change the terms. In this case, it's to the megacorps interest to change the terms, but if they have a right to charge and early termination fee if I change the terms, then I have the right to hold THEM to the original terms.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
LinkTech
Former Linksys Tech
VIP
join:2002-07-02
Mission Viejo, CA | Unfortuantly there is a little line in most contracts that read "we reserve the right to change the contract at anytime" thus giving the megacorp a way to cop out of the contract and not have to live up to it. |
|
tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada | True, but at least the customer has an option to cancel when he/she disapproves of the change. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to LinkTech
I wonder if that line would stand up in court? I would certainly LOVE to see someone get paid for 'breach of contract', notwithstanding that line.
"A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law."
One of the most famous cases on forming a contract is Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, decided in nineteenth-century England. A medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, a smoke ball, would cure people's flu, and if it did not, buyers would receive £100. When sued, Carbolic argued the ad was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was merely an invitation to treat, and a gimmick. But the court of appeal held that it would appear to a reasonable man that Carbolic had made a serious offer. People had given good "consideration" for it by going to the "distinct inconvenience" of using a faulty product. "Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will," said Lindley LJ, "here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable".
When you sign up for 'unlimited' access, that is expressed in a language which is perfectly unmistakable.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
not me
@raytheon.com | I will go further....I would LOVE to see someone get paid for 'breach of contract' calculated at the new overage rates! |
|
