pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Contracts Mean Nothing!
So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice!
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
DoRight
join:2007-07-20
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Comcast
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I feel it's unfair to make someone sign a new contract after you have already completed the first two year agreement. It's unfair if there is no equipment or service discounts involved. This is coming from someone that was in the industry for 13 years.. All people are wanting to do is change their plan.. What does that cost a carrier? NOTHING... |
|
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102  :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! And end up getting a whopping....
21 million - 40% for the lawyers = 12.6 million / 70 million participants gives you:
$0.18!!!!
All that at cost of paying only one $175.00 ETF! |
|
Yougotit
@tds.net
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! Yep! You can sue away!!!
And those really 'nice' contracts that give the company all the rights and the customer and the pain would never give anyone reason to be upset with the poor little ole mom and pop cell phone company, riiiiight? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! Oh yes to you all lawyers are sleazy until YOU need one then he is the "nice" one. Hypocrite.
So what you're sdaying is that companies should be able to not live up to THEIR part of the contract and people shouldn't have nay legal recourse? They should bend over and take it? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to sousademiami
said by sousademiami :said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! And end up getting a whopping.... 21 million - 40% for the lawyers = 12.6 million / 70 million participants gives you: $0.18!!!! All that at cost of paying only one $175.00 ETF! The important thing is thanks to these lawsuit and the "sleazy" lawyers behind then EVERYONE now has 30 day free trials and pro-rated ETFs. ETFs shouldn't be $175 anyways. The mobile companies are still making a killing off of them like they do with their texting rates. |
|
Radioman991
join:2001-09-24
Dayton, OH
1 edit | reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! Oh yes to you all lawyers are sleazy until YOU need one then he is the "nice" one. Hypocrite. So what you're sdaying is that companies should be able to not live up to THEIR part of the contract and people shouldn't have nay legal recourse? They should bend over and take it? oops sorry for the double post |
|
Radioman991
join:2001-09-24
Dayton, OH
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! Oh yes to you all lawyers are sleazy until YOU need one then he is the "nice" one. Hypocrite. So what you're sdaying is that companies should be able to not live up to THEIR part of the contract and people shouldn't have nay legal recourse? They should bend over and take it? As far as I am concerned, all lawyers are sleazy. The 21st Century version of the stereotypical used car salesman |
|
DoRight
join:2007-07-20
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to Radioman991
Yes.. I needed one a few years back and they did nothing for me and made thousands off me.. Most are a joke.. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to DoRight
said by DoRight :I feel it's unfair to make someone sign a new contract after you have already completed the first two year agreement. It's unfair if there is no equipment or service discounts involved. The company isn't "making" them do anything. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Oh yes to you all lawyers are sleazy until YOU need one then he is the "nice" one. Hypocrite. So you can prove that I've hired a lawyer to file a BS lawsuit?
said by BF69 :So what you're sdaying is that companies should be able to not live up to THEIR part of the contract and people shouldn't have nay legal recourse? They should bend over and take it? Um, no. What I'm saying is that if someone agrees to a contract, they should not whine about being expected to hold up their end of it. In this case, they chose to sign a contract obligating them to an ETF and got charged it, what exactly is the problem here?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to DoRight
said by DoRight :I feel it's unfair to make someone sign a new contract after you have already completed the first two year agreement. You're right of course... but where was anyone coerced into signing anything?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :The important thing is thanks to these lawsuit and the "sleazy" lawyers behind then EVERYONE now has 30 day free trials and pro-rated ETFs. Even if that was true, people still had options of prepaid phones and paying full price for the phone as means of avoiding contracts altogether.
Anyone who sues over an ETF he/she agreed to pay should be made to pay double or triple the ETF in my opinion.
said by BF69 :ETFs shouldn't be $175 anyways. The mobile companies are still making a killing off of them like they do with their texting rates. So don't agree to a contract that includes one. Problem solved.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
sholling
Premium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
1 edit | reply to pnh102
You are completely missing the point. You don't have fifty competing services to choose from. In most markets you have four using the same anti-competitive tactics. I have no problem when a contract is used for a legitimate business purpose. For example if they give you $120 off the cost of a phone making you sign a two year agreement is legitimate. But the early termination fee is only legitimate if used to recoup the prorated discount given on the phone. Using it as a penalty to keep customers from moving to a lower cost/higher feature competitor is anti-competitive behavior. That's why the price of cell service remains high and how providers can get away with charging twenty cents for a tiny text message. Verizon's consistent mantra has been that they will never compete on price. An end to early termination penalties, while allowing a recoup of their investment (the phone discount), will force a change in that policy. And that's a good thing!
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.  |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to pnh102
Though I would typically agree. If you sign a contract even if it includes you losing your life if you don't live up to it, then it is binding.
However, I do agree 100% that this lawsuit has brought many good changes to the industry. Changes that would have NEVER occured if left to the monopolistic companies.
These companies are charging these fees to retain customers. It has very little if anything to do with the cost of the phone so that argument is getting old. Phones cost to customers are inflated because of this type of thing. If they were sold in an open market and can be used on any carrier they would be pennies on the dollar compared to their price now. |
|
DoRight
join:2007-07-20
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to quatrix
If they want to change their plan then Verizon was making them sign a new contract. It's unfair to make then sign a new contract just to get a better rate... But I bet you'll argue that.. I just left VZW.. They suck... |
|
WiseUP101
@wellsfargo.com
| reply to pnh102
Why don't you just move to china then? Sounds like you need come to grips with a little thing called capitalism and a free market economy. Competition is what drives our economy, meaning we should have the ability to do business with whom ever, when ever we want, it is what this country is all about. Early termination fees are a crime. It's like Wal-Mart charging you $175 if you decide you want to shop at Target one day because they have something Wal-Mart doesn’t offer. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to DoRight
said by DoRight :I feel it's unfair to make someone sign a new contract after you have already completed the first two year agreement. It's unfair if there is no equipment or service discounts involved. This is coming from someone that was in the industry for 13 years.. All people are wanting to do is change their plan.. What does that cost a carrier? NOTHING... You are 100% correct. An current customer whos contract is up should not have to stay on for 2 more years, however, they also should pay FULL price for a phone upgrade. Why should VZ give someone a FREE or reduced price phone if that customer will cut and run in a few months? Any thoughts |
|
mikeg803
join:2008-07-12
Columbia, SC | reply to DoRight
VZW no longer requires customers to sign a new contract when they change their plan. Besides, even when they did these incompetent consumers that are suing VZW are just that, incompetent. |
|
mikeg803
join:2008-07-12
Columbia, SC
| reply to sousademiami
said by sousademiami :said by pnh102 :So if I sign a contract and I don't feel like living up to my end of it, I can find a sleazy lawyer who can sue for me. Nice! And end up getting a whopping.... 21 million - 40% for the lawyers = 12.6 million / 70 million participants gives you: $0.18!!!! All that at cost of paying only one $175.00 ETF! Kudos. The campbell class action suit a few years ago only got VZW customers a $3 bill credit. What's the point? People should should just push themselves to get more than a second grade education so that they can read their contracts. |
|
