Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (
More info?)
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:a4ydnXWGT-IGCAjdRVn-hg@adelphia.com...
|
| "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote in message
| news:M5glc.61165$oN1.43587@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
| >
| > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
| > news:rmarkoff-CA3D4E.05360502052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
| > | In article <NaZkc.3646$983.111@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
| > | "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
| > |
| > | > If not, the
| > | > contract is still a legally binding document, assuming the phone was
| > | > subsidized.
| > |
| > | Again thats the fiction that the cell carriers want you to believe. It
| > | is their wish list many of which have no basis in law and can not be
| > | made to be legally binding.
| >
| >
| > 100% false. If you signed the contract and didn't receive the phone free
| or
| > at a discounted price, then that is true. It would be wonderful if I
| > could go buy a car and finance it through the dealer's finance company,
| > drive it for a while, then return it when I decided I found something
| > better. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way.
| >
| > The contract signed when purchasing a subsidized phone is and always has
| > been a legally binding contract. As long as the Carrier holds up their
end
| > of the contract, the end user is lawfully required to do the same.
| >
| > |
| > | If you don't have coverage, no judge or jury is going to enforce the
| > | contract, and one hardly needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
| >
| > As usual coming from you, 100% false. That is what the trial period is
| for.
| > The ONLY way the contract is no longer legally binding is if the carrier
| has
| > done something to change the service in the area. Examples: reduced the
| > power, completely taken a tower offline for some reason, switched
| > technologies which resulted in a significant difference in range.
Without
| > the ability for the end user to prove any of the following, the case
| likely
| > will not ever even be heard by even the smallest of courts.
| >
| >
|
| Good post. One more thing- a decline in coverage may not indicate a
problem
| with the carrier. Where coverage was once good at the very fringe of a
| site's area, what happens when a six story hotel goes up between you and
the
| tower? And how would that be the carrier's fault or liability?
|
I wouldn't think that the carrier would be liable in that situation. It all
goes back to the "trial period". It is obvious if you are on the edge of
service. If so, it would be a good idea to go with another provider. I am
not sure abou thte legalities behind getting out of contract for that, but I
personally would hold a carrier responsible if I was the one that accepted
the bad coverage to begin with.
Facebook
Twitter