Flimflam outfit
- Thread starter mewalden
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 7K
Hey me to!!! can we sue Dish to get that extra $5.00
Cost of suit $100.00 was it worth it???
They do.
They can't. Not physically possible. They are TVRO systems. (Television Receive Only) A Dish Network dish does not and cannot transmit. Dish can no more tell what you're watching via satellite than your local ABC affiliate can tell what you're watching with your set of rabbit ears.
Incorrect. They do not collect personnally identifiable information. The aggregate data collected is very small in size and is easily sent over a standard phone connection. Tivo has been doing this for years.
WTF?
They do.
They can't. Not physically possible. They are TVRO systems. (Television Receive Only) A Dish Network dish does not and cannot transmit. Dish can no more tell what you're watching via satellite than your local ABC affiliate can tell what you're watching with your set of rabbit ears.
Not what TVRO stands for, but good effort!
Incorrect. They do not collect personnally identifiable information. The aggregate data collected is very small in size and is easily sent over a standard phone connection. Tivo has been doing this for years.
Um... if you say so?
WTF?
k.
Actually, that is what TVRO stands for, however he used it incorrectly as TVRO is only used to refer to free-to-air Satellite television, and not pay services such as D* or E*. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVRO"]Television receive-only - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Let me rephrase. That is not the correct use of the acronym considering what he is. *shrug*
"Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
The OP may or may not have a case against Dish Network. It is totally irrelevant what MOST Dish Network customers sign. In case you are not aware, there are many instances where the customer is NEVER presented with a written offer, so all they have is a verbal agreement. Even then, if the OP WAS presented with some standard paperwork that includes information about the phone line, it is entirely possible to CROSS THAT PART OUT, initial it, have the technician initial it (acting as an Agent for Dish Network), then get yourself a copy. Heck, keep the OP could keep the original for himself, and make the technician a copy. Whatever. Then, if Dish Network doesn't like the new terms of the agreement, THEY are responsible to modify them accordingly. If they don't do it within a reasonable amount of time (often considered by our courts to be 30-90 days) it will be as though Dish Network did in fact and in law agree to those terms, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel and latches. Then Dish Network is screwed if it ever comes to a determination in court.
All this is just speculation. What is needed to make an actually proper judgment is original autographs (or certified copies of the same) of the actual documents signed, indicating the parties' agreements. If the OP really wants to prove his case, he could post scanned certified copies of the documents, that have been recorded in the public at a local register of deeds office (with the document number and registrar location clearly visible, for verification purposes). Then one could sit as a judge, and demand that Dish Network respond likewise to the allegations, or be forever barred from contest of the assertions so made by the OP. That is, if Dish Network consents to a forum member of Satellite Guys acting as a judge.
Learn the Law. Team Law
The OP may or may not have a case against Dish Network. It is totally irrelevant what MOST Dish Network customers sign. In case you are not aware, there are many instances where the customer is NEVER presented with a written offer, so all they have is a verbal agreement. Even then, if the OP WAS presented with some standard paperwork that includes information about the phone line, it is entirely possible to CROSS THAT PART OUT, initial it, have the technician initial it (acting as an Agent for Dish Network), then get yourself a copy. Heck, keep the OP could keep the original for himself, and make the technician a copy. Whatever. Then, if Dish Network doesn't like the new terms of the agreement, THEY are responsible to modify them accordingly. If they don't do it within a reasonable amount of time (often considered by our courts to be 30-90 days) it will be as though Dish Network did in fact and in law agree to those terms, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel and latches. Then Dish Network is screwed if it ever comes to a determination in court.
All this is just speculation. What is needed to make an actually proper judgment is original autographs (or certified copies of the same) of the actual documents signed, indicating the parties' agreements. If the OP really wants to prove his case, he could post scanned certified copies of the documents, that have been recorded in the public at a local register of deeds office (with the document number and registrar location clearly visible, for verification purposes). Then one could sit as a judge, and demand that Dish Network respond likewise to the allegations, or be forever barred from contest of the assertions so made by the OP. That is, if Dish Network consents to a forum member of Satellite Guys acting as a judge.
Learn the Law. Team Law
"Meeting of the minds" service contract arguments tend not to fair terribly well outside of southern Texas courtrooms. They fair even worse on these forums if you care to take a stroll through the posting history. Judging from the above I'm going to come to the conclusion that unlike most of the legal arguments I've seen posted up until now, you watched through not just the first, but also the second season of JAG.
I take it JAG is some kind of television show. No, I've never seen an episode.
I'm not certain of the track record of "meeting of the minds" arguments, you could be right. Are you suggesting my post depends on those arguments? I certainly agree with the evaluation given in Blacks Law dictionary, that "modern contract doctrine requires only objective manifestations of assent" as opposed to the traditional subjective theory of assent. Also, under 'mutual assent' you'll find that, "In modern contract law, mutual assent is determined by an objective standard - that is, by the apparent intention of the parties as manifested by their actions."
Your point is moot.
Aa a technician I cannot legally or morally "act as an agent" for Dish . I do not have such authorization. Nor would I be authorized to allow any alteration of the 24 month agreement form.
Hmm. I think he's actually a paralegal, in which case the next argument will be that regardless of whether you are empowered to act as an agent of Dish, just by being an employee (subcontractors are iffy on this point) you can be considered one in fact. Same principle as a military Captain not having the authority to launch a nuke, but if they press the button...
He may know the law but I know procedure. If I customer attempts to alter the agreement, the world stops until I get solid footing on this. Because at the end of the day , I don't give a rats ass if the custoemr pays the phone line fee or not. I am going to do whatever it takes to eliminate ANY liability on my part.
I am not going to be the guy who gets that letter/phone call asking "why did you "let" that customer do that?"
It is amazing to me what lengths some will go thru over a Five spot.
Amazing. You visited a thread and posted more than your usual single drive-by comment. You must have more time on your hands these days. That tells me that either your sheep has run off, or you've misplaced your Velcro gloves. In any event, there's another thread going on about a guy who lost his house in hurricane Ike, and Dish is trying to charge him for lost equipment and cancellation fees. Why aren't you over there mocking him for "not reading the agreement" and berating him for being another whiny customer?
Yeah, it was a poor use of the term. It was also late, and I was tired. A long day of installing, and wasting valuable time on hold with the call center to fix screwed up work orders. The kind that a certain pugnacious phone jockey here claims are always the fault of "stupid customers".
