G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
In article <C55mc.5792$cb.431@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
> "Robert M." <robert156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:robert156-FEEE41.07141605052004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> | In article <hG4mc.76417$oN1.75095@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "Robert M." <robert167@mail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:robert167-B14BD2.22012404052004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> |
> | >
> | > Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate any
> | > common law or implied warranty.
> |
> | Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
> | court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that they
> | hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.
>
> 100% false
>
> |
> | Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
> | advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract when
> | they have no coverage.
>
> That is correct, but that is also covered in the contract, and ALWAYS upheld
> in court in favor of the legally binding contract.
It usually doesnt get to court. A letter to one's State's Attorney
general generates a "whats going on here" letter, and no carrier is
going to court over anything less than $250.
And where did you get this silly notion that a carriers contract is 100%
valid. It's not.
In article <C55mc.5792$cb.431@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
>
> "Robert M." <robert156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:robert156-FEEE41.07141605052004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> | In article <hG4mc.76417$oN1.75095@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <reply@board.nomail> wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "Robert M." <robert167@mail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:robert167-B14BD2.22012404052004@news6.west.earthlink.net...
> |
> | >
> | > Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate any
> | > common law or implied warranty.
> |
> | Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
> | court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that they
> | hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.
>
> 100% false
>
> |
> | Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
> | advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract when
> | they have no coverage.
>
> That is correct, but that is also covered in the contract, and ALWAYS upheld
> in court in favor of the legally binding contract.
It usually doesnt get to court. A letter to one's State's Attorney
general generates a "whats going on here" letter, and no carrier is
going to court over anything less than $250.
And where did you get this silly notion that a carriers contract is 100%
valid. It's not.