groundling
join:2003-02-08
canada
1 edit | "Ought to know" vs "up to"
With all the problems with Bell's billings and their continued inability to deliver promised speeds, I thought it would be interesting to look at Ontario's Consumer Protection Act.
There's a number of clauses that might benefit the consumer stuck in Bell Hell.
Though Bell apologists love to sing the "up to " chorus, there's a section of the act that states:
"the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:
A representation that the goods or services or any part of them are available or can be delivered or performed when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they are not available or cannot be delivered or performed."
--
The key phrase is "ought to know".
Should Bell "ought to know" that they cannot deliver the promised speeds in a given area?
If so, then it is an unfair practice, and the consumer may rescind the contract without penalty at any time within a year.
"Rescinding agreement
18. (1) Any agreement, whether written, oral or implied, entered into by a consumer after or while a person has engaged in an unfair practice may be rescinded by the consumer "
Perhaps "ought to know" should become the new chorus, instead of "up to".
--
There are a number of other protections under the act as well ,regarding Internet contracts , changes to contracts.
the ability to correct errors etc.
edit to add link to Ontario's Consumer Protection Act:
»www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut···30_e.htm |
|
dirtyjeffer
Merry Christmas
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| not another Consumer Protection Act discussion...that is the most misquoted document out there...it is not applicable to 90% of what goes on...if you don't like a service, and get get satisfaction, leave...that is the ONLY way a company will listen.
--
Today's motto: Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today to bid farewell to personal responsibility and accountability. |
|
vintagewino
join:2003-07-22
Grimsby, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·magicjack.com
·Look Communications
| said by dirtyjeffer  :not another Consumer Protection Act discussion...that is the most misquoted document out there...it is not applicable to 90% of what goes on...if you don't like a service, and get get satisfaction, leave...that is the ONLY way a company will listen.
Groundling's thought does carry some weight - though I feel very little. Bell's legal department is bigger, better and on staff. How much money do you have for legal fees?
I agree, they OUGHT to know -- but "up to" gives them all the wiggle room they need. Remember the old saying: "half the truth is the biggest lie you can make".
Dirtyjeffer's suggestion is really the most economical - tell them what you think with your wallet. That will give you immediate personal satisfaction.
In the meanwhile, you have internal marketing people speaking of churn rates, sales forecasts, etc. but the only area that will eventually noted is when gross profit keeps dropping with every quarterly report. And THAT will take quite a number of qurterly reports before the marketing spinners will finally be proven wrong. |
|
dbsanfte
join:2005-03-15
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to groundling
The strict enforcement you'd like to see would make the advertisement of internet service nearly impossible, by any company. For a one-page ad, we'd need to tack on 20 pages of addendum listing possible speeds in every single area. No court is going to go for that. |
|
