A moment please
- Thread starter Zero327
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 5K
Then you won't see it making an appearance in court. Hence the "may" in calls "may" be monitored for customer service reasons.
Regarding the earlier question, it was correctly stated that installers only sign to the affect of work. Many of E*'s documents including contracts state that the written authorization of the CEO is necessary to change terms of service (or in case of employees, policies, benefits and the like.)
But think about it from a larger perspective. It's not that 13.6M customer DID do this, it's that they COULD. The entire commerce system of the country is based on the premise that people do not enter into agreements in fashions such as these (there's always that one ass you know can't behave like the rest of society...) Contracts govern most of our behaviors regarding benefits and services, but on a larger scale the contracts are there so that the consumer can protect themselves from inappropriate burden as well as the corporation (nevermind the contracts being one-sided, that has bearing, just not in this particular argument.)
I'm also reasonably sure that the printed material states "by signing the below you agree to be bound, et al..." Modifying the agreement to their liking, which was final when it was delivered to the customer, they then sign it. How is the onus on E* to ensure the customer didn't go against obligation? A simple argument can be made. Why would anyone think this is acceptable behavior in a service contract? You can toy with the lawful technicalities at the end of the day, but I don't see a judge ruling in the consumer's favor when all evidence shows a liklihood that this borders attempted fraud above all else.
More importantly, if you could get away with it why wouldn't you see far more people crossing terms in their contracts they dislike out and then signing when they renew their cell phone policy, or (in my case) crossing out that $5.00 charge the energy company hits me with if I use my credit card to pay. You know I'd get billed properly, and you know I'd lose in court.
Oh burn!
Maybe the installer will end up taking the pipe if Allsat looses to the customer.
All I am saying is that for ''whatever" reason, Dish doesn't have us sign the 18 month or 1 year contracts.
And this from a company who makes us sign for almost everything short of taking a piss.
I know a simple argument can be made, and you're missing this through the trees:Zero327 said:
A contract is valid once two parties sign it. If the customer does not sign the contract, it is not a binding document.
It may have been a "final document" when it went to the customer. However, that does not mean it is a binding document. If the customer does not sign the document, you can bet no one would give the customer any service. However, if the customer changes the legalease and signs the document, someone needs to glance over the document before service is given.
These service companies need to do a better job with their contracts.
I'm distressed you can't see the condescending tone toward the customer you are taking. As in implying that "'I'm also reasonably sure that the printed material states 'by signing ..." is immutable just because it's printed but the customer's statement he is not bound is drivel because it's in ballpoint pen. If the contract the customer signs doesn't contain "by signing.." bit because it's lined out then it's not part of the agreement.
And I believe it's telling when you say "I don't see a judge ruling in the customer's favor".
In court there isn't "THE COMPANY" and "the customer". There are complainant and respondent and they are equals under law. And the judge will rule for the side that presents the preponderance of evidence that supports their theory of the case; not on how many lawyers sit at which table or whether one side is worth millions and one can't even pay attention.
But before it got that far, I certainly agree that Dish did not have to accept the changed agreement. It would be absolutely entitled to reject the customer's proposed contract and cut him off; bill him the customary charge for the programing he got and repossess the equipment.
But they apparently didn't do that. The fact that someone at Dish didn't tell someone else about the nature of the agreement they got from the customer isn't material.
Simple solution: Make 'em sign before any work begins. If they try and "modify" the pre-written agreement, the installer walks. They then sign a 2nd agreement that's strictly installation-related when it's done.
Right on.
Ever try to get your car repaired according to an estimate without signing it? It's got tons of legalese that all favors the garage and none that favors the customers. Change a word before you sign and the odds are you will be asked to remove your car from the premises. Although this might be because I use California garages and they have to give written estimates if they want to have any luck in court at recovering monies owed.
If they showed up in court with a signed estimate that had the price lined out and a smaller price written in but wanted what was originally printed the judge would laugh them out of court.
Last edited:
Dish isnt the company charging the cust this fee the fee comes directly from allsat. As far as the document that the cust altered that is the dish network serv agreement and only applies in refernce to dish so what it will come down too is what was presented on all sats website and if by clicking any of the options on the screen did the cust agree to those terms .
For the call he made they only about 14% of calls are actually recorded and even the calls that are recorded usually deleted after about a week, because all sat just uses them to train new agents
For the call he made they only about 14% of calls are actually recorded and even the calls that are recorded usually deleted after about a week, because all sat just uses them to train new agents
I just remembered something: Way, way, way back I remember more than one Judge Wapner case where in his ruling he said something to the effect:
"I don't know what the plaintive thought the deal was or what the defendant thought. I can't read minds to see who is lying so I must rely on the writing. The contract you both signed says..."
And there is no higher authority in jurisprudence than the presiding judge of The Peoples' Court.
Case closed
"I don't know what the plaintive thought the deal was or what the defendant thought. I can't read minds to see who is lying so I must rely on the writing. The contract you both signed says..."
And there is no higher authority in jurisprudence than the presiding judge of The Peoples' Court.
Case closed
Well, he says he ordered over the phone so it could come down to "he said - she said" Then it usually is "whoever has the better legal team wins".
However he might prevail if he keeps the matter in small claims court. Around here individuals who file small claims against large corporations often win just because the corporations make a cost/benefit decision and opt to pay a small settlement and save the cost of defending their claim.
Of course this means he has to pay what they claim he owes then sue to get it back.
If he could produce a contemporaneous record of the telephone conversation and a witness(who isn't related) who could testify to being told the substance of the conversation at the time if occurred, he'd be close to ensuring a victory.
I'm fully aware of my tone. I'm not pro-consumer for a reason and the reason is quite simple. From a business perspective most customers are idiots. This is why you have to idiot-proof pricing and packages. This is why you can't sell a customer a "channel" without them coming back and screaming about why it's not available in HD, SD and cloned on 118.5 so they get a stronger signal. But that's not what I'm basing the argument on.
Regardless of equals under law established presidence to this point favors the business (respondant or whichever legal jargon you wish to use, it doesn't nullify the fact that the customer is an idiot [yeah I know, but I couldn't help it.])
And I disagree with you on the point of manpower. It isn't who has the most lawyers sitting at the table, it's who is most experienced in law and the facts. Charlie's Death Squad (aka the Defense) have the knowledge and resources to bury your average single customer, hence why this was an unintelligent move by the consumer. If it was a case of class action, the circumstances change as there's more than one complaintant, but in this case that hasn't occured.
If you want to weigh facts, why does this single customer think he has a privilage or right that the other 13.59M customers don't? Why does he believe he has the ability or authority to alter an agreement as he sees fit, return it through an automated process (contract processing is automated, not secretarial work these days) and then when service is rendered point to hand-made edits and think he carries the weight of law behind it.
There's nothing there. What I DO take issue with is he then turns around and plays victim when his own action instigated the cause. Hence the disparaging references to his mental capacity. He caused his own problem in not rejecting the contract outright and instead editing the service agreement, an agreement that AllSat and DISH originally (before edits) understood and agreed to; the same argument being made against AllSat and DISH on the customer's behalf but the argument swings both ways. The document is an agreement, not a negotiation. If he wants to negotiate he needs to make an appointment with Charlie. This is not something a pair of companies should be held liable for, lest these two companies have to protect the customer from his own idiocy. That seems to be what some would advocate.
Last edited:
Your case is solid and clearly stated. And I know the position customers but businesses in. I have been the corporate controller of two companies and CFO of one and I really do identify with your point.
But in my old age I've gotten "liberal" (wash my mouth out with soap) and taken to becoming an advocate for "everyman" against the "Megalow Marts" of the world.
Since "everyman" now lives or dies on his ability to obtain credit business has begun using this fact to bludgeon problem consumers into doing the bidding of businesses even when it is not lawful or in their best interest.
Another words, in your shoes I would say just what you said (not as well, but taking the same position).
But I'm not in your shoes. I'm in Joe's shoes.
Bottom line: I respect and understand your view. I just don't share it.
Now, it's gotta be 5:00 somewhere.
Bye.
Because technically, it does.Zero327 said:
It is a very simple issue:
Dish Network's (and maybe even AllSat's) agreement read that the customer has no right to alter the document. Once the customer made the changes on the document and signed it, it technically is no longer a contract, unless Dish Network and AllSat agree to the changes. Just because the processing is automatic does not eliminate the negligence and ignorance of Dish Network and AllSat.
With that being said, I'll just highlight portion which is important here:
You cannot feign ignorance of this practice if the statements are true.
The guy ordered service and asked not to be put on a contract, yet the installer shows up and tries to put him in an 18-month commitment.
So the actual question now becomes how did the idiot play AllSat and Dish Network? And realizing (if his statements are true) it appears that AllSat and possibly Dish Network pulled a classic bait-and-switch. Which makes the idiot look like a maestro, with Dish Network and AllSat scratching their heads.
I take back my earlier statement... there's always two.
Feigning ignorance is exactly what the customer is doing. And the issue isn't what the customer told the CSR, because the customer cannot PROVE that (see how that whole law thing works?) DISH can very much prove the customer accepted service, dependant on account records they can prove he was under contract for X and never disputed it, and ultimately, they can prove the customer attempted to enter into a contract fraudulently.
Regardless of how you think the customer "looks", he's still going to have the shirt off his back removed with a pitchfork.
I miss the 90's when customers were actually getting screwed. Now they're getting screwed less than then, but desperately want to make up for lost time.
Feigning ignorance is exactly what the customer is doing. And the issue isn't what the customer told the CSR, because the customer cannot PROVE that (see how that whole law thing works?) DISH can very much prove the customer accepted service, dependant on account records they can prove he was under contract for X and never disputed it, and ultimately, they can prove the customer attempted to enter into a contract fraudulently.
Regardless of how you think the customer "looks", he's still going to have the shirt off his back removed with a pitchfork.
I miss the 90's when customers were actually getting screwed. Now they're getting screwed less than then, but desperately want to make up for lost time.
The only proof is the amended terms of service. And it seems quite interesting that the customer specifically asked AllSat for no commitment, yet they showed up at the door with paperwork for a commitment.Zero327 said:
Yep. There certainly is.Zero327 said:
What DISH can show and what the customer can show are two very different things. The customer has no records, DISH has plenty. That's enough in small claims court, and fraud over $500 doesn't go there last I recall. You side-stepped my counterpoints by the way.
Because you still say Dish Network can show something, and I would, just like everyone else here, like to know what that proof is.
The customer most likely has a copy of the "agreeement" that he amended. I cannot address nor side-step counterpoints without proof behind those counterpoints. The only point I've been trying to make is that the customer's side of the story paints a very bad picture about the whole process. The very least is that someone should have checked that he didn't alter the agreement.
The customer most likely has a copy of the "agreeement" that he amended. I cannot address nor side-step counterpoints without proof behind those counterpoints. The only point I've been trying to make is that the customer's side of the story paints a very bad picture about the whole process. The very least is that someone should have checked that he didn't alter the agreement.
