FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 2:34 pm
Why sue TWC & not CBS ?Why suing TWC & not CBS ? I'd like to hear the Lawyers reason for that. Story link: » variety.com/2013/biz/new ··· 0578532/» insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/ ··· lawsuit/ |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA 2 edits |
tshirt
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 3:01 pm
Because they are the ones charging for, but not delivering CBS programming. However if their "content/channel line up may change any time without notice" disclaimer is adequate they aren't liable, or if they gave adequate notice on day one that they are no longer able to supply CBS content anymore, then one month of that portion of the fees would be their ONLY liability. However, if TWC then chooses to sue CBS for voluntary breech under the current contract (still valid/ in force, I believe) CBS would have to reimburse all TWC's fees, fines and cost, PLUS profit, PLUS penalty which could be substantially more (CBS damaged TWC/customer relations which could take years to repair.) |
|
|
Maybe if the Plaintiffs tired to get out of TWC contract over this and TWC said no maybe they have a case. I do think that TWC has probably though of this and covered their bases with some sort of "Without Notice" language in the contract. |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
to FFH5
The TWC sub isn't under contract with CBS. |
|
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to battleop
So they get the fees for the rest of the month and no EFT on the CATV (does TWC actually do more than month to month on CATV? this isn't Satellite) and maybe the install if recent. IF they still WANT any service, make them start with a fresh contract, NO new promo. |
|
|
It's not clear if they were an existing customer that lost CBS or did they sign up thinking that CBS was part of the deal. |
|