vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
to BiggA
Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stopIn the contract he signed, AT&T explicitly gave him the right to file grievances in one of two ways, at his discretion: arbitration or small claims court. Whether he had an actionable claim was up to the court to decide. Incidentally, it decided that he did. |
|
|
I don't believe its att's call whether or not he can sue. People have rights and its your right to sue. Only the Judge can decide if the suit is worthy or not. Att can put whatever they want in their TOS. But that doesn't necessarily mean squat. |
|
vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 5:21 pm
One would think so, but in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (10-948), the US Supreme Court ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses in terms of service agreements are, in fact binding. In this case, though, AT&T expressly left the right to sue in small claims court in the agreement. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA to vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-15 11:54 am
to vpoko
No he didn't. The court was wrong. |
|
vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-15 11:59 am
We'll see what happens on appeal. Right now there's a judgement that says he was right. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-15 6:29 pm
Well, that judgement is wrong. It's crystal clear, and written in the contract. |
|
vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-15 7:29 pm
Their advertising has to reconcile with the contract. If they clearly advertise "unlimited" and then use vague verbiage in their contract like "right to manage the network" it's very possible that the fine print won't get interpreted how they wanted. That's why we have courts. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
to BiggA
So it is your belief that he was throttled because AT&T knew he was violating the TOS by tethering and it had nothing to do with going over the limit of their unlimited plan? |
|
vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko to BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-17 12:48 pm
to BiggA
Oops, AT&T dropped the appeal and paid the judgement. » news.yahoo.com/t-scotche ··· 134.htmlYou'll have to test out your legal theory elsewhere. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to CXM_Splicer
No. It has nothing to do with tethering. It has to do with the fact that the AT&T contract clearly states that they have the right to manage their network.
Exactly. People need to understand what is in their economic best interest. Example: if I can buy the iPhone 5 and flip it on Craigslist for a $450+ profit, who cares that I gave up my upgrade and that I'm in a contract, no matter what I want in the future, I'd still be ahead. Of course that wouldn't work if more than a tiny fraction of people understood what was in their economic best interest. |
|
vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-20 12:57 pm
said by BiggA:No. It has nothing to do with tethering. It has to do with the fact that the AT&T contract clearly states that they have the right to manage their network. How much latitude do you think that gives them? What if part of "managing their network" means one day they decide to limit everyone to 1 phone call a month? What if their advertising is clearly at odds with the contract? Could a jury conclude that their advertisement was made to convince the user of terms inconsistent with their contract and they should be estopped from applying those terms? Google "estoppel" for the relevant law. |
|