Verizon=Christmas Grinch!

[YourMobileGuru]

And I get really sick of people who don't know jack about the law post about contract issues.

And no, you don't need it in writing for it to be a contract. Lay people are always confused about that.

And respectfully I get tired of people with a sense of entitlement. What does one have to do with the other. Show me somewhere in the terms and conditions (your "contract" if you will) where it say that the wireless carrier owes you a free accessory or bill credit if they make a mistake. If you read the sections titled Disclaimers and Warranties and Waivers of Limited Liability it actually goes out of they way to say they DON'T

Unless there is some form of delayed activation (ie when you order online) the contract takes effect when the new phone is activated. Using your phone constitutes acceptance of the contract (terms and conditions).

The reps did what they were supposed to do they activated the new phone but they should have also know that the old phone would need to be programmed again (takes 2 minutes *228 option 1) and the customer would need a new SIM because swapping back to the old phone would have de-provisioned the SIM card that was used to activate it the first time.

 

[YourMobileGuru]

The point is that there are steps that could have been taken on the consumers end to prevent this from happening.

Agreed.

 

[Lee_Bo]

So I stopped by a vzw store today to get my wife her Christmas present. I became eligible for an upgrade last week and decided to use it to get her the razr since she has the og X and I have a TB. Anyways they mess up the activation process and completely disable her X! So I have to call CS to get her phone reacticated thus ruining her Christmas surprise. I think they should owe me a free phone or something. A new Nexus would suit me fine lol

People screw up and make mistakes. That's the nature of being human. We're not perfect. With all due respect, for you to suggest that they give you a free phone......well I really hope that was a joke. I have five phones on my account and I've had situations where I used phone #1's upgrade to upgrade phone #3 and had the activation messed up. So I call in and explain to them very nicely and I always get an apology and it's resolved while I'm on the phone.


Again, I mean you no disrespect.

 

[CarryMe]

Show me somewhere in the terms and conditions (your "contract" if you will) where it say that the wireless carrier owes you a free accessory or bill credit if they make a mistake. If you read the sections titled Disclaimers and Warranties and Waivers of Limited Liability it actually goes out of they way to say they DON'T

Yawn. You have proven my point that lay people always think for something to be a contract it has to be in writing. Whoosh. That is the sound of my point going right over your head.

The reps are agents of the corporation (feel free to look up agency law if you don't understand this point) and when they make agreements in return for consideration with a customer (feel free to look up what consideration means in the context of contract law if you don't understand this point), they have formed a contract with that customer on behalf of the corporation. And modifications of existing written contracts can be made verbally. And breaching these verbal contracts/contract modifications leads to the same liability as the breach of a written contract. And this can happen even if the original written contract has a term in it that states that all modifications of the contract must be in writing if a court determines the contract to be an adhesion contract (again, look it up if you don't understand what an adhesion contract is) or the provision is otherwise void as a matter of public policy.

Like it or not, that is how contract law works. If you don't like it, write your congressperson to have them pass laws to change it. Contract law in this country is a long-established and well-developed body of law. There are only a few instances where contracts have to be in writing or where modifications of contracts must be in writing, most notably contracts involving real property. There are others in some states, such as the transmutation of separate property into community property in certain community property states. But these are the exceptions to the general rule that contracts do not have to be in writing nor do modifications of contracts, even modifications of written contracts.

 

[YourMobileGuru]

Yawn. You have proven my point that lay people always think for something to be a contract it has to be in writing. Whoosh. That is the sound of my point going right over your head.

The reps are agents of the corporation (feel free to look up agency law if you don't understand this point) and when they make agreements in return for consideration with a customer (feel free to look up what consideration means in the context of contract law if you don't understand this point), they have formed a contract with that customer on behalf of the corporation. And modifications of existing written contracts can be made verbally. And breaching these verbal contracts/contract modifications leads to the same liability as the breach of a written contract. And this can happen even if the original written contract has a term in it that states that all modifications of the contract must be in writing if a court determines the contract to be an adhesion contract (again, look it up if you don't understand what an adhesion contract is) or the provision is otherwise void as a matter of public policy.

Like it or not, that is how contract law works. If you don't like it, write your congressperson to have them pass laws to change it. Contract law in this country is a long-established and well-developed body of law. There are only a few instances where contracts have to be in writing or where modifications of contracts must be in writing, most notably contracts involving real property. There are others in some states, such as the transmutation of separate property into community property in certain community property states. But these are the exceptions to the general rule that contracts do not have to be in writing nor do modifications of contracts, even modifications of written contracts.

And the signed contract supersedes any agreement expressed or implied between the agent and the customer. Look it up if you dont believe me. The the customer agreement specifically excludes any other right s not listed therein.

And respectfully I am an "agent" (though I dont work for Verizon or AT&T directly) so I know what I am talking about.

Under About This Agreement:

"This agreement and the documents it incorporates form the entire agreement us. You can't rely on any other documents, or on what is said by any sales or customer service representative, and you have no other rights regarding Service or agreement"

Italics added by me for emphasis.

 

[CarryMe]

And the signed contract supersedes any agreement expressed or implied between the agent and the customer.

Whoosh! That's the sound of my point about adhesion contracts and void/voidable/verbally modifiable contract provisions flying right over your head.

Face it, you have no idea what an adhesion contract is. If you did, you wouldn't have posted what you just posted.

Just because someone puts something in a contract does not mean it is enforceable.

 

[YourMobileGuru]

Whoosh! That's the sound of my point about adhesion contracts and void/voidable/verbally modifiable contract provisions flying right over your head.

Face it, you have no idea what an adhesion contract is. If you did, you wouldn't have posted what you just posted.

Just because someone puts something in a contract does not mean it is enforceable.

LOL wow.

Believe what you want, but a contract is a contract and the one you sign is very explicit in limiting your rights. Argue it in court all you want, but the OP would not get a free phone and would inevitably spend several times the cost of the device full retail to have a judge toss it out if it even makes it that far..

 

[CarryMe]

. Argue it in court

So how many times have you ever argued anything in court? If you ever had you would understand the concept of a nuisance suit - it is one in which it would cost more to defend than just to settle. Big corporations do that all the time - settle small claims to avoid negative PR and avoid attorney's fees themselves.

You talk about how much a plaintiff would have to spend, well not much except for court costs and service of process if they represent themselves pro se and they can ask that those be reimbursed if they prevail. A big corporation is looking at $300-$500 an hour to defend against a nuisance suit. Just to answer the complaint and have a lawyer show up in court would be over $1000, even more in major metro areas.

And small claims court is a freaking zoo. The judges do whatever they want with no regard for procedure or substantive law and it costs too much to appeal their decisions so hardly anyone ever does and so they get away with doing whatever they want to. They make decisions based on how they feel that day. And in general, they aren't too happy with $300-$500 an hour lawyers showing up in their over crowded courts defending nuisance suits that they could have settled for less than the cost of the attorney time.

That is the real world, dude.

Again, you seem to have no understanding at all as to what an adhesion contract is.

 

[YourMobileGuru]

I am not going to continue to debate this with you, you think you can get your way just because and go ahead and feel that way but saying a contract is not enforceable when it is in black and white and you just dont like what it says is just laughable to me. I have no interest in arguing legal mumbo jumbo and people who think and act like like you are promoting are the reason companies crack down on policies and fees. Good evening.

 

[Droid800]

Yawn. You have proven my point that lay people always think for something to be a contract it has to be in writing. Whoosh. That is the sound of my point going right over your head.

The reps are agents of the corporation (feel free to look up agency law if you don't understand this point) and when they make agreements in return for consideration with a customer (feel free to look up what consideration means in the context of contract law if you don't understand this point), they have formed a contract with that customer on behalf of the corporation. And modifications of existing written contracts can be made verbally. And breaching these verbal contracts/contract modifications leads to the same liability as the breach of a written contract. And this can happen even if the original written contract has a term in it that states that all modifications of the contract must be in writing if a court determines the contract to be an adhesion contract (again, look it up if you don't understand what an adhesion contract is) or the provision is otherwise void as a matter of public policy.

Like it or not, that is how contract law works. If you don't like it, write your congressperson to have them pass laws to change it. Contract law in this country is a long-established and well-developed body of law. There are only a few instances where contracts have to be in writing or where modifications of contracts must be in writing, most notably contracts involving real property. There are others in some states, such as the transmutation of separate property into community property in certain community property states. But these are the exceptions to the general rule that contracts do not have to be in writing nor do modifications of contracts, even modifications of written contracts.

If you knew anything about how corporations work, you'd know that employees are more often than not contractually barred from making agreements that constitute anything. They may be 'agents' , but nothing they say or do can be considered anything remotely resembling a contract.

In other words, your words mean jack squat. You might think you know what you're talking about, but you don't.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[tntdroid]

No need to attack each other over this. Disagreement is fine but no need to make it personal on our public forums.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Jude526]

I sold wireless for a few years. We would do future dating on gifts. Don't know why that wasn't suggested. But a free phone for the mistake? Mistakes are made.

Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk

 

[backbeat]

Since today's phones are nothing but consumption machines which carriers greatly profit from (from data-mining, etc), reason tells you that a carrier would almost insist for you to accept a new, free phone at times like these. Of course, that runs counter to retail "logic", but from an admin point of overview, it's exactly what the carrier wants.

 

[E.T.]

Funny. I think that both sides are right.

No, the guy isn't going to get, nor does he deserve, a $700 phone. On the other hand, consumers should know that a contract of adhesion definitely isnt the final word. If a contract has a bad provision, it can be found unenforceable, even if it is "black and white."

 

[YourMobileGuru]

Funny. I think that both sides are right.

No, the guy isn't going to get, nor does he deserve, a $700 phone. On the other hand, consumers should know that a contract of adhesion definitely isnt the final word. If a contract has a bad provision, it can be found unenforceable, even if it is "black and white."

In some cases yes but what exactly is unenforcable in this case? How this whole argument state was with the idea that rep apparently told them about activating the phone was incorrect (it was activated immediately not delayed), but the he apparently felt that because of a mistake he was owed something. The TOS clearly states that what the agent may or may not tell you is not legally binding, only the contract itself and the related documentation (ie the current plan list, TOS, acceptable use, etc) are binding. No where anywhere does it say that the carrier owes you something for their mistake. If they screw up they fix it as soon as they can but this is one of those cases where there wasn't much they could do to fix it beyond reactivating her old phone (which was done), and replacing the SIM card after it was found that the one they had was de-provisioned. They dont charge for SIM cards so the replacement SIM card was free anyway.

 

[Just a Guy]

Just thought I would post a quick update. Somehow the Original store that caused the issues I had managed to screw everything up so bad that I never was "charged" for my upgrade. So yesterday I went and ordered myself the Razr Maxx using the same upgrade