 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / September 2005Cingular-- Breach of Contract
I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their unresponsive customer service system. The Office of the President staffer was of no more use than a busy signal. I have since filed a complaint with the FCC and the State's Attorney General. I just want to spread the bad word on Cingular's bully tactics---- contracts are for customers not Cingular. 12 August 2005 One year ago I signed a contract with AT&T Wireless, now owned by Cingular, obligating me and Cingular to a two year's of service for the monthly minimum consideration or $29.99. I recently received an undated letter from Cingular informing me that you were unilaterally "changing" my rate plan from my current National Plan rate of $29.99 per month to Cingular's GSM America National $39.99 plan, a 33 percent increase. The service I was being provided was both TDMA and GSM-quite transparent to me because my cellphone selected the best available signal wherever I was calling from. According to your letter converting my Siemens S46 cellphone to only GSM is rather straight forward, a slight change in the user settings. The essence of your letter that prompts this letter is you are lessening my service options and increasing my monthly rate. Gosh, what a great deal! What is the value of a contract with you folks? I have had full access to the GSM system since I signed the original contract. Nothing has changed other than the fact that you now want to charge me more per month for what is technically a lesser service. This passes no common sense test. Having now attempted to resolve this issue through your customer service system that by many measures is broken, I am now writing you. It is patently illogical and customer unfriendly to unilaterally increase my monthly rate while I am still under the terms of our contract-it has a year to go. This is big company stupid behavior. Cingular's Customer Service approach is "we no longer offer that plan" therefore you can either cancel or suck it up and pay more. And to quote Becky, a supervisor in your "Save Unit" (I called at 1440 on 12 August), "yes, Cingular has breached the contract" and you can cancel with no early termination fee or switch to the $39.99 plan. I did ask if she meant to say "breached" to which she provided an affirmative reply. What sort of Alice in Wonderland world are you folks operating in? The supervisor of the "Save Unit" was the least friendly, least accommodating, least thinking person in the chain of customer service people I dealt with over the course of multiple calls to deal with this issue. Everyone at Cingular might want to re-familiarize themselves with your "Values": Customers: We value our customers and treat them with respect, providing friendly, courteous, knowledgeable and prompt service at all touch points. We seek and are driven by our customers' feedback. Integrity: We operate with unyielding integrity, obeying all laws and adhering to a stringent code of business conduct. We will not tolerate unethical business conduct by our team members. Performance: We continually raise our performance to exceed customer and shareholder expectations. We strive to be the best wireless company in the world. Teamwork: We partner with one another-respecting new viewpoints, building trust, enhancing communications, and sharing best practices to deliver world-class products and services. People: We value our team members and treat them with respect, providing an environment where diverse individuals can develop and are expected to perform to their full potential. I want a solution other than to pay more or quit. It would seem a reasonable accommodation could be made in my billing if Cingular provided me with a monthly credit of $10 for the remainder of the contract against the new GSM America National plan cost of $39.99. :I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their : unresponsive customer service system. . . .you can cancel with no early termination fee or switch to the $39.99 plan. Tirade <snipped> What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 good options - pay more or exit the contract w/out termination fees. They have NO obligation to loose money over you or any one else. FYI look at what Verizon just sent their customers: "Notice of Introduction of Administrative Charge Verizon Wireless will begin assessing an "Administrative Charge" of $0.40 per line per month on October 1, 2005."Notice of Introduction of Administrative Charge Verizon Wireless will begin assessing an "Administrative Charge" of $0.40 per line per month on October 1, 2005. and closed with IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE Grow up and get on with your life. -David or he/she can call a lawyer and force them to honor their contract. >or he/she can call a lawyer and force them to honor their contract. Would that make financial sense? I think not. ;) Better to file a complaint with the BBB.  SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> So to your thinking a contract is good as long as it is convenient for either party? > :I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their > : unresponsive customer service system. . . .you can cancel with no early [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -David > So to your thinking a contract is good as long as it is convenient for > either party? Do you have a written copy of your contract? It wouldn't surprise me that the fine print allows making changes that either both parties have to accept or the contract can be terminated without an early termination fee. You have several choices: accept the change, terminate with no early termination fee or see what a lawyer says. Whatever you decide, I hope it works out to your benefit. Bill K Yup. It is like those life insurance commercials on TV, where they say "Your rate will never increase". However the fine print indicates that the key word is "your", as in, the rate for just your plan will not increase. If they decide to raise the rate for everybody in your rate plan, they can. > What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 good > options - pay more or exit the contract w/out termination fees. They have > NO obligation to loose money over you or any one else. Here's another option: peform the contract. Since when are legal obligations optional? > :I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their > : unresponsive customer service system. . . .you can cancel with no early [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -David > > What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 good > > options - pay more or exit the contract w/out termination fees. They have > > NO obligation to loose money over you or any one else. > > Here's another option: peform the contract. Since when are legal > obligations optional? This is one I'd love see go before a judge. I can't imagine what defense Cingular would have- we're not talking about conditions outside of their control. They are doing nothing more than changing terms for no reason other than greed. > > > What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 > good [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > control. They are doing nothing more than changing terms for no reason > other than greed. I'm not an attorney, but... I believe that all of the Cingular/ATTWS contracts require mediation instead of a courtroom. However, I believe the cost to the customer is only $25. However, since the one-sided contract is patently unfair, I wonder if you could challenge the overall unfairness (and illegality) of the contract in court anyway -- essentially saying the contract is null and void. I would imagine you could require Cingular to buy back any phones/accessories they sold to you as part of the service. Now, if you go the phone free, there is no benefit to voiding the contract. Small claims court would be a place to start, but I don't know if they can enforce "specific performance" and make Cingular complete the contract. Then again, they wouldn't spend $250/hr. for an attorney if the cost to them is just $500 to "buy out" your contract. If you've got the time and energy, I'd say GO FOR IT! If Cingular hadn't resolved my problem (new contract with comparable value + $$ toward purchase of new phone), I'd be looking at the same solution myself. But, I had really good luck and a smart and friendly gal in Cingular's "Office of the President (West Coast)." Yes, I know it is just customer service for the pissed off and persistent, but this time it worked. > > > > What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 > > good [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > sold to you as part of the service. Now, if you go the phone free, there is > no benefit to voiding the contract. But the contract is not as one-sided as everyone claims. The company agrees to sell you service at a set price for a period of time and the customer agrees to pay for the service during the contract period. What most people don't like is that the cellular companies can not control factors that prevent coverage from being guaranteed. What most people don't like is that municipalities and state governments are jumping on the cellular bandwagon as the latest solution to their cashflow problems. People complain to the cellular companies and try to get out of their contracts because some greedy government entity decides to tack a 3% tax on cellular service- show me where that is the carrier's problem. My point is that many poeple try to get out of their contracts for reasons that aren't caused by the other party. In this case, the OP had the material terms of the contract changed on him. Basic contract law says that this can't be done. > But the contract is not as one-sided as everyone claims. The company agrees > to sell you service at a set price for a period of time and the customer > agrees to pay for the service during the contract period. And that is all the OP wants to enforce. He seems willing to give up the GAIT feature of the service, but they won't even give him a comparable minutes-to-dollars plan. > What most people don't like is that the cellular companies can not control > factors that prevent coverage from being guaranteed. Removal of the GAIT hardware and not giving him an equivalent plan are ENTIRELY within the control of Cingular. The date of GAIT removal is arbitrary. > What most people don't like is that municipalities and state > governments are jumping on the cellular bandwagon as the latest > solution to their cashflow problems. Not sure how this is relevant. > People complain to the cellular companies and try to get out of their > contracts because some greedy government entity decides to tack > a 3% tax on cellular service - show me where that is the carrier's > problem. For one, that is what we business owners call a "cost of doing business." If they want the flexibility to increase the price on plans, they shouldn't lock people into long-term (2 year) contracts. They're gambling that the benefit of a guaranteed revenue stream outweighs the potential of rising costs. Also, name one time a cellular company hasn't line-itemed EVERY SINGLE tax they get hit with. The OP has a problem with the base cost/value of his "new" plan. > My point is that many poeple try to get out of their contracts for > reasons that aren't caused by the other party. In this case, the OP > had the material terms of the contract changed on him. Basic > contract law says that this can't be done. Not only were they changed, but the implementation timetable of the change was arbitrary. Cingular REALLY should have either programmed their systems to allow for matching contracts in their new billing system OR waited two years from the date the last GAIT contract was sold and simply said, "your contract is up. See ya." They're gambling that people won't get upset and will just take what's given to them. The OP is totally within his rights to complain and to seek satisfaction. All he wants is what BOTH parties agreed to in the contract. > > People complain to the cellular companies and try to get out of their > > contracts because some greedy government entity decides to tack [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > SINGLE tax they get hit with. The OP has a problem with the base cost/value > of his "new" plan. Having been a business owner, I know that these are never absorbed. As someone now working in the industry, I also know that government organizations and consumer groups have both lobbied for the itemization of taxes on cellular bills. I fail to see where the company is increasing the price of a plan. > > My point is that many poeple try to get out of their contracts for > > reasons that aren't caused by the other party. In this case, the OP [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to them. The OP is totally within his rights to complain and to seek > satisfaction. All he wants is what BOTH parties agreed to in the contract. You should probably reread my posts in this thread- I have stated more than once that the situation of the OP is clearly a violation of the contract and I agree that he should have the remedy available to have the terms of the original contract met. I have never disagreed with that. > I fail to see where the company is increasing the price of a plan. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a violation of the contract and I agree that he should have the > remedy available to have the terms of the original contract met. They aren't raising the price of his contract, per se, but are instead forcing him from one plan "X minutes for X dollars across both GSM and TDMA" to another plan with either fewer minutes or, if he wants the same minutes, to a plan for $10 more per month. > > I fail to see where the company is increasing the price of a plan. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to another plan with either fewer minutes or, if he wants the same minutes, > to a plan for $10 more per month. Please don't combine statements out of context to portray a position I do not support. The first statement you provide was not connected to either the OP's problem- it was in response to a totally different situation. That is unless your intent here is to provide no real value and simply fulfill some personal agenda. Perhaps Cingular should pay the user and early termination fee. >> What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 good >> options - pay more or exit the contract w/out termination fees. They have >> NO obligation to loose money over you or any one else. > >Here's another option: peform the contract. Since when are legal >obligations optional? The contract states that if you terminate early, you have to pay an early termination fee. It does not say that the carrier can not terminate early. It does not say that if the carrier terminates early that they have to pay you an early termination fee, or compensate you in any way. > The contract states that if you terminate early, you have to pay an > early termination fee. It does not say that the carrier can not > terminate early. It does not say that if the carrier terminates early > that they have to pay you an early termination fee, or compensate you in > any way. They can WRITE a one-sided contract and you can sign it, but if it is unfair no judge will force it to happen. For example, no judge will enforce a contract to sell a new BMW for a dollar, regardless of who signs it. > > The contract states that if you terminate early, you have to pay an > > early termination fee. It does not say that the carrier can not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no judge will force it to happen. For example, no judge will enforce a > contract to sell a new BMW for a dollar, regardless of who signs it. These contracts have been around for at least a decade and the industry has been under the microscopes of the media, consumer groups, government agencies and the courts, and yet there has been no finding by any court that the terms of the blanket cellular contracts are illegal and should be rewritten to comply with contract law. I would venture to guess that the best mind in this group knows a tenth of the least experienced member of one of the cellular legal teams when it comes to contract law (This especially applies to Larry). This attitude that the carriers have no clue of how to write a legally binding service agreement is ridiculous. > These contracts have been around for at least a decade and the industry has > been under the microscopes of the media, consumer groups, government [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > applies to Larry). This attitude that the carriers have no clue of how to > write a legally binding service agreement is ridiculous. You're subscribing to the "Great and Powerful Oz" theory. You can choose not to look at the man behind the curtain, but there are plenty of cases where people thought long-standing contracts were ironclad and found they weren't. All it takes is one plaintiffs' attorney that is just a teensy bit smarter or just a bit more legally creative than the folks who drafted the contract. The carriers will write whatever they think they can get away with. Unless someone kicks and screams, government will do little and the people will just take it. You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites to cases where customers have sued? Do you even have anecdotal evidence of such? Unless someone sues -- and in a comparable situation -- the court isn't going to review the contract. And legislators... well, let's just say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers. One reason there likely haven't been cases or big challenges to the contracts is that the wireless companies have been smart enough to "pay off" the loudest troublemakers. If you yell loud enough, they'll give in so that you don't take them to court and get a precedent-setting verdict. > > These contracts have been around for at least a decade and the industry > has [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're subscribing to the "Great and Powerful Oz" theory. Really? You seem to be subscribing to the "Colonel Klink" theory. Open mouth without having a clue of what is going to come out. > You can choose > not to look at the man behind the curtain, but there are plenty of cases > where people thought long-standing contracts were ironclad and found they > weren't. All it takes is one plaintiffs' attorney that is just a teensy bit > smarter or just a bit more legally creative than the folks who drafted the > contract. All you need to do is point out a single ruling that led to the complete rewrite of blanket service agreements. If you can't do that, please don't bother to respond- nothing you could say would carry the same weight. > The carriers will write whatever they think they can get away with. Unless > someone kicks and screams, government will do little and the people will > just take it. Really? Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to change business practices. > You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites to > cases where customers have sued? Um- that would be your job here, not mine. I do have detailed knowledge about the contents of service agreements over the last decade and know that the same basic TOS have existed over that time. Me having cites would have no effect on that fact. > Do you even have anecdotal evidence of > such? Unless someone sues -- and in a comparable situation -- the court > isn't going to review the contract. So it is your position that in today's litigious society, nobody has initiated legal action concerning the terms of a cellular contract? Hell- there are probably at least a dozen reading this thread. And some of them would rather have burned for eternity than accept a partial settlement from the carrier. > And legislators... well, let's just > say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers. And your point is what? That cellular providers enjoy some kind of unique advantage because of this? > One reason there likely haven't been cases or big challenges to the > contracts is that the wireless companies have been smart enough to "pay off" > the loudest troublemakers. If you yell loud enough, they'll give in so that > you don't take them to court and get a precedent-setting verdict. Why don't you contact the Consumers Union or one of the major metropolitan news services in your area and ask them if they've been paid off. But ask them first about their efforts to uncover the evils done to the customer by the carriers. I see you spouting all kinds of opinion and not one fact. Do some research and get back to us when you understand the topic. Fact- no person, group or entity has been able to convince a court that cellular service agreements are written in language that violates any portion of contract law. Opinion- the government should not have to step in when people are too stupid to handle their own affairs (transalation- I should not have to pay for the stupidity of others). > All you need to do is point out a single ruling that led to the complete > rewrite of blanket service agreements. If you can't do that, please don't > bother to respond- nothing you could say would carry the same weight. Oh, so it is an all-or-nothing proposition? My guess is that your only exposure to the law has been fighting a parking ticket with a magistrate. You don't need to do a complete rewrite in order to make a contract legal. That is why... and you should pay close attention here... there is usually a section called "severability" in good contracts. Why? Because sometimes smart (plaintiffs') attorneys find holes in supposedly ironclad contracts. > Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same > scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming > consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to > change business practices. What business practices has cellular changed??!! Despite all kinds of kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage, the customer service gets progressively worse and the monthly bills get more complex every year. What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local grocery store can't. Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40. > > You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites to > > cases where customers have sued? > > Um- that would be your job here, not mine. I do have detailed knowledge > about the contents of service agreements over the last decade and know that > the same basic TOS have existed over that time. Again, just because they have been around and/or unchallenged for years doesn't mean they'd hold up in court. > So it is your position that in today's litigious society, nobody has > initiated legal action concerning the terms of a cellular contract? Hell- > there are probably at least a dozen reading this thread. And some of them > would rather have burned for eternity than accept a partial settlement from > the carrier. Nobody said "partial settlement." If they got a full settlement of their grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested), they likely settled -- and undoubtedly had to shut up about it. It is one heck of a battle to go up against a huge corporation and you don't always win. Anyone with the money to pay for it out-of-pocket doesn't care about $29.95 vs. $39.95 per month. And an attorney taking something on contingency will settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not going to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money. > > And legislators... well, let's just > > say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers. > > And your point is what? That cellular providers enjoy some > kind of unique advantage because of this? No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation. > Fact- no person, group or entity has been able to convince a court that > cellular service agreements are written in language that violates any > portion of contract law. If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter. If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me one cite. >> Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same >> scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming >> consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to >> change business practices. > >What business practices has cellular changed??!! Disclosure. Coverage maps. Grace period. Billing. >Despite all kinds of >kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage, the customer service >gets progressively worse and the monthly bills get more complex every year. Given that this is a radio service, coverage is actually quite good in most areas. Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse. Monthly bills are mostly complex because of disclosure and attractive promotions. >What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O >tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local >grocery store can't. Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to >advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40. That's grossly exaggerated and misleading. On my last bill, total charges were just $3.43. There were also taxes of $1.10, but then my grocery and dry cleaner add on taxes too. The total of $4.53 as a percentage add-on is actually *lower* than the sales tax added on to most prices in this state. >Nobody said "partial settlement." If they got a full settlement of their >grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested), they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not going >to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money. It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or Small Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction. >No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle >complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation. Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and excellent political connections. >If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter. >If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me >one cite. The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any specific language that's even arguably unenforceable. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:> > >What business practices has cellular changed??!! > > Disclosure. Of what? Nothing new in the last 5 years... > Coverage maps. Which are iffy at best. Not only that, but the resolution of any publicly-available maps is sufficiently bad as to skip over gaps. > Grace period. Will give you that one. > Billing. How? My old Vector One bills from 20 years ago were much simpler. > Given that this is a radio service, coverage is actually quite good in most > areas. Urban or rural? Even SEMI-rural areas like the Olympic Peninsula and other areas just off the I-5 corridor are spotty at best. > Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse. Do you have links to outside audited data? > Monthly bills are mostly complex because of disclosure and attractive > promotions. Disclosure? Line-iteming fees is a way to make things MORE complex. If bread was advertised at 10 cents a loaf, but they added a "bagging fee," "mandatory health code maintenance fee" and a "gross receipts tax" that made it 50 cents, that practice would get shut down quickly. > >What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O > >tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? The local [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cleaner add on taxes too. The total of $4.53 as a percentage add-on is > actually *lower* than the sales tax added on to most prices in this state. My basic service is $50 ($39.95 plan + $10 data). In addition to that, I paid $14.76 in various surcharges and taxes (federal, state, county and local). Of that, only $6.39 was sales tax. What is interesting, though, is that sales tax in this area is only 8.6%. Where did the other 3+% come from? Tax on the excise taxes and surcharges??!! > It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or Small > Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction. You're making my point for me. I said that the contracts have gone unchallenged because they'll settle instead of putting up a test case. > >No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle > >complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation. > > Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and excellent > political connections. I'm saying that LEGISLATORS lack the legal training to properly know what is going on. And yes, the telecom industry has well-paid lobbyists, too. > >If there have been no court cases, then no court has reviewed the matter. > >If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me > >one cite. > > The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any > specific language that's even arguably unenforceable. The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms of the contract, but the carrier can (or can alter terms at will) makes the contract unfair on its face. As for cites, how can I prove a negative? Scott said (or at least implied) that courts have upheld the contracts. I'm saying that I'd bet there are NO test cases. It is up to Scott or you or anyone else to show a test case where the contract was challenged and upheld. Otherwise it would be like me saying, "courts have upheld the fact that Cingular broadcasts mind-control tones over your cell phone" and then insisting that you prove that they haven't. > The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms of the > contract, but the carrier can (or can alter terms at will) makes the > contract unfair on its face. You make a valid point. The cellular business is not nearly as regulated as was POTS. The Government's position is that there are choices available, and the marketplace will regulate everything. Unfortunately, the cellular carriers all impose the same provisions in their contracts, so the consumers' choices are virtually non-existent. >> The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms >> of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Unfortunately, the cellular carriers all impose the same provisions in > their contracts, so the consumers' choices are virtually non-existent. With Cingular, if you bring a compatible handset, you can activate service WITHOUT a contract. Your plans aren't greatly downgraded, either from new customers who sign new contracts. I don't see how that's so bad. I don't know if Sprint still does, but they did offer a no-contract service for an additional $10/month. Not so bad for someone who needs only 2 or 3 months of service. TH >With Cingular, if you bring a compatible handset, you can activate >service WITHOUT a contract. ... That used to be true, but when I checked a year ago, a minimum 1-year contract was required for new SIM-only service. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:> >> Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse. > >Do you have links to outside audited data? http://www.jdpower.com/cc/telecom/ratings/wireless/Find.jsp >> That's grossly exaggerated and misleading. On my last bill, total charges >> were just $3.43. There were also taxes of $1.10, but then my grocery and dry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >paid $14.76 in various surcharges and taxes (federal, state, county and >local). That's hardly the fault of Cingular. >Of that, only $6.39 was sales tax. What is interesting, though, is >that sales tax in this area is only 8.6%. Where did the other 3+% come >from? Tax on the excise taxes and surcharges??!! Why not find out? >> It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or Small >> Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction. > >You're making my point for me. I said that the contracts have gone >unchallenged because they'll settle instead of putting up a test case. Not true. >> Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and excellent >> political connections. > >I'm saying that LEGISLATORS lack the legal training to properly know what is >going on. ... Actually they do -- most are attorneys, and they generally have qualified staffers. >> The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any >> specific language that's even arguably unenforceable. > >The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms of the >contract, but the carrier can (or can alter terms at will) makes the >contract unfair on its face. Again, not true. Regardless, you've still not yet come up with any specific language that's even arguably unenforceable. >As for cites, how can I prove a negative? Scott said (or at least implied) >that courts have upheld the contracts. I'm saying that I'd bet there are NO >test cases. It is up to Scott or you or anyone else to show a test case >where the contract was challenged and upheld. ... No it's not -- it's up to you to substantiate your own claim, positive or negative -- otherwise it's just personal speculation. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any > specific language that's even arguably unenforceable. Actually John, this is a great point. I'm betting that the bad terms are more in the line of dislikes and are totally enforceable. > > All you need to do is point out a single ruling that led to the complete > > rewrite of blanket service agreements. If you can't do that, please don't > > bother to respond- nothing you could say would carry the same weight. > > Oh, so it is an all-or-nothing proposition? My guess is that your only > exposure to the law has been fighting a parking ticket with a magistrate. That would be more than mildly inaccurate. However, I'm getting the opinion that it might be more becoming of your experience. > You don't need to do a complete rewrite in order to make a contract legal. > That is why... and you should pay close attention here... there is usually a > section called "severability" in good contracts. Why? Because sometimes > smart (plaintiffs') attorneys find holes in supposedly ironclad contracts. I am not the one needing to pay close attention- your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. Such a contract would come under extreme scrutiny and the GREAT MAJORITY of the subscriber agreement would have to be rewritten to bring equity to the contract. > > Name one other industry that has been exposed to the same > > scrutiny by consumer groups, media and kicking and screaming > > consumers over the last three years and has not been forced to > > change business practices. > > What business practices has cellular changed??!! That wasn't the question- reread and try again. > Despite all kinds of > kicking and screaming, there still is spotty coverage, It is radio service- the expectation of blanket coverage is highly unrealistic. > the customer service > gets progressively worse Not according to every indipendent survey done over the last 18 months. > and the monthly bills get more complex every year. Thanks to government regulations and legal decisions that have forced it. How much money would the carriers save if they could eliminate all of that 'confusion' from the bill. Multiply the cost of printing a couple of pages of the bill by millions of subscibers. > What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O > tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? Electric Sewer and Water Grocery Retail Transportation > The local > grocery store can't. It can't? The sales tax is based on receipts and it is itemized. > Your dry cleaner can't. It is just another way to > advertise $29.95 per month and actually bill $40. Be careful what you ask for- maybe the cellcos should start charging everyone an extra $20 a month to cover the taxes in NYC, which are ridiculous. Not a great deal if you live in an area that taxes at a tenth of what NYC does. But this is exactly what you wanting- taxes rolled into the price of the plan. > > > You say "there has been no finding by any court." Do you have cites to > > > cases where customers have sued? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Again, just because they have been around and/or unchallenged for years > doesn't mean they'd hold up in court. Time for you to read real slow- the list of consumer groups, politicians and media organizations alone that would love nothing more than to prove something like this would fill the rest of this post. At least two of the networks have run negative features on the industry in the last year. State AG's have gone on record about cellular practices. People have written to the FCC and their government representatives to complain about the perceived injustice. The BBB, FCC, Consumers Union and countless other organizations handle thousands of complaints a year. With the exception of the FCC, every other person or organization I have just mentioned would love nothing more than to bring the evil cellcos to their knees. And yet, the practice is allowed to continue. Why? Could it be because all of the above recognize that the contract is fair and valid and wqould stand up to a legal challenge? > > So it is your position that in today's litigious society, nobody has > > initiated legal action concerning the terms of a cellular contract? Hell- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > grievances / damages (not including the inflated punitives requested), they > likely settled -- and undoubtedly had to shut up about it. And yet the Service Agreement remains unchanged. > It is one heck > of a battle to go up against a huge corporation and you don't always win. > Anyone with the money to pay for it out-of-pocket doesn't care about $29.95 > vs. $39.95 per month. And an attorney taking something on contingency will > settle if the money is enough and there is no court time. You're not going > to find an attorney taking on the big, evil cell carriers for no money. See the list of people and organizations I mentioned above. Most- if not all- have the deep pockets to finance such a battle. > > > And legislators... well, let's just > > > say they aren't all top-drawer lawyers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, I'm simply saying that they don't have the legal training to untangle > complex contracts -- and consequently craft appropriate legislation. And this represents an exclusive benefit to cellular just how? > > Fact- no person, group or entity has been able to convince a court that > > cellular service agreements are written in language that violates any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If there have been court cases and the contracts have been upheld, give me > one cite. Google it- there are hundreds. > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but consumer can't" is a FAIR contract? I'm guessing you work for one of the wireless companies?? > > What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing B&O > > tax (tax on gross receipts) above and beyond a monthly charge? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It can't? The sales tax is based on receipts and it is itemized. Sales tax is different than a B&O tax. > Time for you to read real slow You know, I can actually read far faster than you can think and type, so I'm doin' OK. > ... And yet, the practice is allowed to continue. Why? Could it be because > all of the above recognize that the contract is fair and valid and wqould stand > up to a legal challenge? Or maybe because nobody has ever brought a case (or at least without settling and sealing). I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. In court, the burden would be upon Cingular to show legal precedent for upholding the contract. If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem citing just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without compensation. > > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. > > So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but > consumer can't" is a FAIR contract? Where did I say that? There are terms specified in the contract that allow both the company and customer to void the contract under certain conditions, so your contention that the consumer can't is patently false. > I'm guessing you work for one of the > wireless companies?? Keep guessing. > > > What other business besides telecom or cable gets away with itemizing > B&O [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sales tax is different than a B&O tax. A tax on receipts is a tax on receipts......period. > > Time for you to read real slow > > You know, I can actually read far faster than you can think and type, so I'm > doin' OK. When do you plan on showing it. > > ... And yet, the practice is allowed to continue. Why? Could it be > because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or maybe because nobody has ever brought a case (or at least without > settling and sealing). Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge and not sealed. > I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. In court, the burden > would be upon Cingular to show legal precedent for upholding the contract. Which they have obviously done. You claim to be such a smart guy- the truth is not that hard to find. > If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem citing > just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without > compensation. But that is not what is being argued here. For the fifth time, I agree with the OP that he has a case in this instance for the change in contract terms. What part of that last statement is hanging you up? > > > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the > consumer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > both the company and customer to void the contract under certain conditions, > so your contention that the consumer can't is patently false. I said AT WILL -- which is essentially what they're doing to the OP. Name one circumstance that is entirely under the customer's control (and not a reaction to something the provider did or changed) that allows the customer to just walk away with no penalty. > > Sales tax is different than a B&O tax. > > A tax on receipts is a tax on receipts......period. OK. So you either have never run a business or you're not in a state that charges B&O tax. Do you think corporations should be able to line-item-add-on their potential income taxes? A B&O tax is a business income tax on gross receipts and is not collected separately by grocery stores or anyone else (besides cable and telcos). > Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge and > not sealed... the truth is not that hard to find. Good. So cite me one. > > If there are as many cases as you say, you should have no problem > > citing just ONE that says that the provider can cancel at will without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the OP that he has a case in this instance for the change in contract terms. > What part of that last statement is hanging you up? You're arguing against yourself, then. Read the rest of the thread -- not just your posts or mine. On 8/21 @ 4:57, "Jerome" appeared to defend Cingular in the OP's case by saying that the contract was binding. I replied by saying that unfair contracts -- as would relate to the OP's circumstance -- are unenforceable. YOU then launched into this whole "the contracts must be fair because they're still around" theory. > > > > your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the > > consumer. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > reaction to something the provider did or changed) that allows the customer > to just walk away with no penalty. For the last time (read carefully)- I agree with the OP. > > > Sales tax is different than a B&O tax. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > income tax on gross receipts and is not collected separately by grocery > stores or anyone else (besides cable and telcos). The taxes itemized on a cellular bill are either sales tax or a tax exclusive to the sale of cellular service. None of your other examples enjoy that kind of taxation. > > Actually, the hundreds I mentioned before were brought before a judge and > > not sealed... the truth is not that hard to find. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > circumstance -- are unenforceable. YOU then launched into this whole "the > contracts must be fair because they're still around" theory. And I stand by my statement- the actions of Cingular in this case are not covered in the original sales agreement and therefore not covered by any of the terms of the contract. It is not the contract at fault here, it is the actions of the company. To say that the contract is one-sided because of this situation is not an accurate statement. That is what I am responding to. You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, is voiding the contract. They are not holding the original poster to making any more monthly payments, and they are not holding him to an early termination fee. They are offering him, presumably without credit check, the ability to enter into a contract for services they do still offer. > You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma > business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, is voiding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > check, the ability to enter into a contract for services they do still > offer. But while I agree with your view of the situation, we may part ways after that. I think that the company is just as responsible for upholding the terms of the original agreement, not just ending service and allowing the customer to walk. In this case, I believe their solution was a totally different plan in term of minutes and price. Why should they be allowed to offer only a solution that costs the customer more money, when they expect the consumer to pay the amount originally agreed to by both parties. Hell, what is to prevent them from only offering a $100+ unlimited plan as the 'solution'? Where do you think you would get if you bought a new phone with less features on eBay and inform the company that due to the limited functionality of your new phone, you are dropping to the bottom-end plan for the rest of your contract and if the carrier doesn't like it, they can terminate the contract without penalty within 30 days? Scott Wrote: > > You are correct. The action of the company, getting out to the tdma > > business and getting out of the roaming on analog business, i [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the rest of your contract and if the carrier doesn't like it, they can > terminate the contract without penalty within 30 days? you might want to read the little 'opt out' clause in your contract! lo > Scott Wrote: > > I think that the company is just as responsible for upholding the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > you might want to read the little 'opt out' clause in your contract! Which one do you speak of? Care to quote the language? Who are you saying can "opt out?" There has been a big change in the services they are offering. They are changing the contracts to reflect that. They are not doing it to one customer. They are doing it for an entire class of customers, tdma customers. If the customer can find a better deal elsewhere, he has been freed to do it. > There has been a big change in the services they are offering. They > are changing the contracts to reflect that. They are not doing it to > one customer. They are doing it for an entire class of customers, tdma > customers. If the customer can find a better deal elsewhere, he has > been freed to do it. Then ALL of those customers with UNEXPIRED contracts have a cause of action to enforce the remainder of the deal or to get comparable terms on the new service. What you're missing, Jerome, is that Cingular grabbed market share and locked people in with attractive rate plans for a long term. So far, I haven't seen anyone insisting they keep the GAIT system up. All anyone has been asking has been to keep a comparable rate plan -- something Cingular can do easily and at negligible cost (because the marginal cost of minutes approaches zero). AFAIK, they're only pulling down GAIT customers. Do you have specific knowledge -- other than CS rep speculation (which, admittedly, got me for a while) -- that TDMA is being pulled right now anywhere? Whether the customers are under contract or not, is not a "cause of action". They are being let out of the contract. It is a new service. It has it's own set of plans. Choose one. They are not required to add plans for you. > Whether the customers are under contract or not, is not a "cause of > action". They are being let out of the contract. It is a new service. > It has it's own set of plans. Choose one. They are not required to > add plans for you. If the contract term has expired, you're out of luck. If the contract has not expired, BOTH parties to a contract have an obligation to perform. If the customer arbitrarily wants out, Cingular would hit them with a fee. Why shouldn't the provider be held to the same standard. What gives them higher standing than the customer? When I or someone else replies to your post, we are replying to you, to what you said, not to what someone else posted. If we want to reply to what someone else said, we will reply to that post, not yours. What is happening to the original poster with cingular is similar to what happened to me with Sprint PCS. Sprint PCS upgraded from wireless web to Vision. Some wireless web features stopped working on my phone. I had a choice. Either stick with my old phone and WW, or buy a new phone and pay $5 per month more for Vision. Or since I was out of contract already, switch (downgrade) to a different carrier. cingular is doing the same kind of thing that insurance companies do. An insurance company can take an entire class of plans and raise the rates or drop coverage. cingular is dropping tdma. In many areas they do not have analog, and are not willing to pay analog roaming. They therefore are dropping entire classes of plans, gait plans and tdma plans. cingular very plainly states that at present they are a gsm service provider period. Except for their areas where they did have analog, they are required for about two more years to keep it running. I would not be surprised if analog only customers are not getting a similar letter. > When I or someone else replies to your post, we are replying to you, to > what you said, not to what someone else posted. If we want to reply to > what someone else said, we will reply to that post, not yours. When threads get mixed up and replies don't always post in sequence, it is always better to include (a portion of) the comment you're commenting about. > What is happening to the original poster with cingular is similar to what > happened to me with Sprint PCS... since I was out of contract ... Your situation is somewhat similar to the OP's, but for one major difference -- he was not out of contract. > cingular is doing the same kind of thing that insurance companies do. > An insurance company can take an entire class of plans and raise the > rates or drop coverage. Wireless isn't like insurance. You can cancel your insurance at any time (even if there are no material changes to the plan) without a penalty, whereas you cannot do that with a wireless contract. > cingular is dropping tdma. In many areas they do not have analog, > and are not willing to pay analog roaming. They therefore are > dropping entire classes of plans, gait plans and tdma plans. They are apparently phasing out only GAIT at the moment because of the extra infrastructure requirements to support it. And, if you talk to the right people, they're making allowances on new service. > cingular very plainly states that at present they are a gsm > service provider period. For new service, they can be a CDMA carrier for all anyone cares. They do, however, have an obligation to uphold their end of the contract. For example, people make significant investments (accessories, etc.) based on the expectation of two years with a given handset/service plan. >>your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. > > So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but > consumer can't" is a FAIR contract? It is if you agreed to it. If this is an unacceptable clause to you, then your choice is to other go prepaid with no contract, or not get service through cingular at all. > I'm guessing you work for one of the > wireless companies?? Oh, the shill argument. How convenient. Well, *I* don't work for the wireless companies. I'm not even a Cingular customer anymore, and have no incentive or personal investment in defending them. However, people refusing to use common sense and read contracts, or to own up to a certain level of responsiblity for the terms of the agreements they bind themselves into annoys me greatly. >>all of the above recognize that the contract is fair and valid and wqould > stand >>up to a legal challenge? > > Or maybe because nobody has ever brought a case (or at least without > settling and sealing). Total BS argument. There are plenty of siren chasers out there who would LOVE to sink their teeth into the income possibilities afforded them from a class action lawsuit respresenting millions of cell phone customers over "unfair" contracts, IF they had a case. And they've even sued cell phone companies on behalf of customers, and won over things like poor performance of phone insurance. Yet not a single one about the service agreements themselves has surfaced. That's probably because there's no case to be had. > I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes. > In court, the burden > would be upon Cingular to show legal precedent for upholding the contract. IF they were being legally challenged. Where's the legal challenge? SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > >>your contention is that the contract is extremely unfair to the consumer. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then your choice is to other go prepaid with no contract, or not get > service through cingular at all. Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed -- even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope." > > I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. > > Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It > doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes. Uhhh... you're making my point for me. I'm saying there AREN'T any precedent-setting cases that say that specifically say the one-sided "out" clauses are fair and legal. If you know of a case that upholds that part of a contract -- or that says the provider can materially alter the terms at no penalty to itself -- go ahead and cite it. As you say, it only takes a few keystrokes. I think they would uphold it, unless it could be proved that you agreed to sell it for $5 under some form of duress brought on by the buyer. Then again there are some cars I would not pay $5 for. hihi >>>So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but >>>consumer can't" is a FAIR contract? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the > judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope." I think you've just proven the validity of Cingular's side of the equation, actually. Cingular is increasingly being required to conserve spectrum, and to do that it has to consolidate the signalling formats being used on tis network in order to maximize spectrum efficiency. It can be easily argued that it's unfair to Cingular to expect them to indefinitely support an antiquated technology through GAIT, and are being more than fair in letting someone out of a contract if they don't want to migrate to a Cingular plan and off GAIT. >>>I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. >> >>Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It >>doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes. > > Uhhh... you're making my point for me. If your point is that you don't want to expend a minimal effort to back up your own assertions because you know there's none to be found, then sure, the point is effectively proven. :) > I'm saying there AREN'T any > precedent-setting cases that say that specifically say the one-sided "out" > clauses are fair and legal. There doesn't need to be. Contracts aren't treated as null and void until they can be upheld in court, so not finding a case in which the contract IS affirmatavely upheld doesn't mean the contract can't be upheld. Our legal system does not work that way. Such a negative finding It could just as easily mean that no one has bothered to challenge such a contract. If you know of a case that upholds that part of > a contract -- or that says the provider can materially alter the terms at no > penalty to itself -- go ahead and cite it. Sorry, the onus isn't on me here. Contracts that CAN'T be enforced are instead challenged legally in the courts and struck down. Thus the burden is on you to cite a case in which a court has nullified that portion of the contract. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > > Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed -- > > even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the > > judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope." > > I think you've just proven the validity of Cingular's side of the equation, > actually. It can be easily argued that it's unfair to Cingular to expect > them to indefinitely support an antiquated technology through GAIT, > and are being more than fair in letting someone out of a contract if > they don't want to migrate to a Cingular plan and off GAIT. Big difference if the Cingular knowingly CAUSES the circumstances to change -- especially if they are the ones totally in control and if they could have reasonably predicted industry circumstances. Also, the OP wasn't asking them to indefinitely support GAIT. Instead, he was only asking for the completion of the contract ATTWS/Cingular so aggressively pursued. Furthermore, the OP was only asking Cingular to honor the minutes and cost of his plan for the same time left on his contract. Since the marginal cost of on-network minutes approaches ZERO, the cost to Cingular to meet that small request is significantly smaller than the bad PR and the value of Cingular employees' time responding to the OP's numerous requests. > >>>I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative. > >> > >>Probably because you know you won't find anything? > > If your point is that you don't want to expend a minimal effort to back > up your own assertions... No, I'm saying it makes no sense to try and NOT find any cases. As I said in the previous posts, I don't believe there are any comparable cases where the contract was challenged and upheld. > > I'm saying there AREN'T any precedent-setting cases that say > > that specifically say the one-sided "out" clauses are fair and legal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > finding It could just as easily mean that no one has bothered to > challenge such a contract. EXACTLY! Read back up the thread. The poster (not the OP) said that all of the contract terms HAD been reviewed and upheld by courts AND that their existence was proof that they were fair and valid. I simply asked that the poster cite ONE case where the contracts were upheld in toto or in circumstances similar to the OP's. > > If you know of a case that upholds that part of a contract -- or that > > says the provider can materially alter the terms at no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > burden is on you to cite a case in which a court has nullified that > portion of the contract. As I said above, I believe the cases are VULNERABLE to challenge and that such a challenge had not yet been mounted. Again, I can't prove a negative -- that no cases had been filed. Think of it this way... Imagine that I said, "courts have held that Isaiah Beard knows nothing about the law." You reply, "oh yeah? Prove it!" and I come back with, "No, the onus is on you. YOU prove that they haven't said it!" Same thing. I never said courts have thrown out contracts. I merely said that the early termination terms, in my opinion, are imbalanced and unfair and that they wouldn't stand up to a solid legal challenge. >> ... If this is an unacceptable clause to you, >> then your choice is to other go prepaid with no contract, or not get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the >judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope." You are badly misinformed. I suggest you consult a qualified attorney. >> Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It >> doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes. > >Uhhh... you're making my point for me. I'm saying there AREN'T any >precedent-setting cases that say that specifically say the one-sided "out" >clauses are fair and legal. ... With nothing to back it up, which makes it nothing more than uninformed personal speculation. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > >Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed -- > >even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the > >judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope." > > You are badly misinformed. I suggest you consult a qualified attorney. Contract Law 101. If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna," but won't let the customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty on their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one that is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. I will grant, however, that they likely have two defenses. First, if they gave a free phone AND unlocked it at contract termination, it could be said that the phone was the cost to break the deal. If the phone remains locked to their system, however, it has no more value than a doorstop (or what you might get for a used locked phone on eBay). Second, they could argue "usage of trade." If that held up, it would mean that they succeeded in enforcing terms through sheer inertia. >> >Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed -- >> >even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Contract Law 101. Did you actually take such a class, or did you read that in USA Today? ;) >If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna," There is no voiding of a contract. >but won't let the >customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty on >their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one that >is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. ... Not if you signed the contract voluntarily. As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no real issue here of "Breach of Contract." SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > >Contract Law 101. > > Did you actually take such a class, or did you read that in USA Today? ;) Didn't take that exact class, but I did take a number of law courses (and not just 101's) in college to broaden my background in business. > >If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna," > > There is no voiding of a contract. Forcing a consumer into far worse terms in order to force him to quit is the same as voiding the deal. It would be like your boss making your life hell so that you'd quit instead of him firing you. > >but won't let the > >customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty on > >their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one that > >is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. ... > > Not if you signed the contract voluntarily. You can sign whatever you want -- voluntarily or not -- but if it is "unconscionable," a judge will throw it out and/or order specific performance. > As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no real > issue here of "Breach of Contract." Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal. I'm surprised that the OP didn't get satisfaction when escalating, though. If you're persistent but polite, you'll eventually get something to level things out. As I've said before, minutes (especially unused ones) have little to no marginal cost, so Cingular would be best served by just giving the guy 200 extra per month or a bucket of 2,000 or whatever. >> There is no voiding of a contract. > >Forcing a consumer into far worse terms in order to force him to quit is the >same as voiding the deal. It would be like your boss making your life hell >so that you'd quit instead of him firing you. That's not the case here. >> Not if you signed the contract voluntarily. > >You can sign whatever you want -- voluntarily or not -- but if it is >"unconscionable," a judge will throw it out and/or order specific >performance. It's not and it won't be. >> As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no real >> issue here of "Breach of Contract." > >Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally >renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal. I disagree. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> > >Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally > >renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal. > > I disagree. What part don't you agree with? Unilateral? Check. Cingular wants this and customer doesn't. Terms more favorable to [Cingular]? Check. Fewer minutes for more money is clearly not in the CUSTOMER'S favor. Weasel out? Check. If customer won't take the newer, costlier plan, Cingular will graciously "let him out" of a deal he doesn't want out of. >> >Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally >> >renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal. >> >> I disagree. > >What part don't you agree with? See my prior posts. I don't care to keep rehashing the same ground. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> >> The contract states that if you terminate early, you have to pay an >> early termination fee. It does not say that the carrier can not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They can WRITE a one-sided contract and you can sign it, but if it is unfair >no judge will force it to happen. ... Really? Based on what? SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> It sounds fair to me. >> What sort of a dream world are you living in??? Cingular gave you 2 good >> options - pay more or exit the contract w/out termination fees. They have >> NO obligation to loose money over you or any one else. > >Here's another option: peform the contract. Since when are legal >obligations optional? What specific legal obligations? Quotation please. SignatureBest regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES: John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular> Quit yer Fuckin' Bitchin' > I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their > unresponsive customer service system. The Office of the President staffer [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > with a monthly credit of $10 for the remainder of the contract against the > new GSM America National plan cost of $39.99. Working for Cingular the last "rule" is the start of their issues. We have a 83 % turnover in my call center ; most people just walk away from it shaking their heads. I have seen one rep die and 5 others collapse from the anxiety that is created in part by the bearaucracy that Cingular has managed tolayer itself in. Cingular has performance goals that are across the board goals for any inbound rep which are 8:00 min call duration or less but not less than 4:00 min. No more than 10% of your calls are so to be transferred or conferenced. Less than 10% of your calls are to be repeat calls for example, if a customer with 5 lines on his acct calls in about line 1 and gets his issue taken care of then the 3rd or 4th user calls in with another issue it counts as a repeat call against the original rep. Short calls should be less than 6% ;short calls are where the customer cannot hear you or you cannot hear them or the system might have an issue and drop the call, anything less then 45 seconds is considered a short call. Hold Time should be less than 10% ; hold time is exactly that putting the customer on hold. Availability has to be greater than 85% of total log in time ; typical shift is 6-3 6:30 to 3:30 and so on the last shift generally comes in about 11:00 all shifts have a 1 hr lunch and 2 -15 minute breaks which are all logged out for . Your second rule is teamwork ; there is no teamwork and it is set up that way form the bottom up. Every department is a seperate group. The only communication between the groups is when a call is transferred. 1 common thread and probably the only is a notation system called Clarify which everyone has access to I think. But the billing system is divided into 2 groups on the Cingular side and the old ATT had /has 2 billing sytems as well then there is sales which I am still trying to figure out how many sections it comprises of 7 at last count, tech support has 2 groups and 1 special projects group the business group the retention group the Accts payable group OOPresident group the customer service group the High level adjustment group the Transfer of service group. Some of these groups are only accessable thru e mail and or automated forms from the customer service group. The other values listed are affected by the 2 I listed above. Do we keep our job by making the performance goals or do we lose our job and push the customer around ? I have a family in a area where the job market is very poor which is where Cingular places its call centers; what would you do if you were wearing my shoes? >I sent the following note to Cingular after grinding my way through their > unresponsive customer service system. The Office of the President |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message