Getting out of 2 year contract

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
00:53:01 GMT, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Dave C." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>> > >
>> > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
>> > a
>> > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
>> >
>> > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>> > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
>>
>> Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
>> don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
>> go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
>> that has no service.
>
>Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

There is no such "common law."

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Getting out of 2 year contract

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
21:13:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.
>
>John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
>was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
>to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.
>
>John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
>the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
>yourself and the world in which you live.

Ad hominem. Sure sign of a desperate position. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:06:27 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>> > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>>
>> The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
>> when looking at houses.
>
>That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
>house.

If so, then they are responsible for the consequences. The law doesn't
protect a foolish buyer.

>Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
>calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
>provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

No provider guarantees "full coverage."

>Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
>providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
>on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none.

Oh, I see--what I actually think doesn't matter to you.

>You don't think the providers
>should be held responsible for lying.

1. Wrong.

2. There was no lie in this case.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:03:54 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>> >he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>>
>> On the contrary -- as I wrote in the part you snipped:
>>
>> The burden, quite simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the
>> particular location, and choose accordingly.
>
>The subscriber may not have the opportunity to do so.

Then the subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>If that's the case, the subscriber will fall back to the next
>opportunity: ask the company. Give a ZIP code, and ask if there's
>coverage. And then double check that with another phone call to CS, and
>then the published map.

I suspect that either (1) the subscriber didn't bother at all, or [more likely
IMHO] (2) knew in advance but moved to that location anyway.

>And when all of those things indicate that there's service, but he moves
>and finds out there's not--guess what? It's the provider's problem, not
>his.

Not unless the provider has guaranteed coverage at that particular location,
which no provider will do.

>When he makes best effort and they fall down on their face, it's their
>fault.

Nope, and no evidence of a "best effort" in any event.

>John, it's not always the customer's fault.

This case is the customer's fault.

>And if the provider makes a
>claim that there's service but it turns out there isn't, then the
>provider broke the contract.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>*Now* what are the penalties? Do we as
>subscribers have any penalties we can levy on the providers for breaking
>the contract?

Of course. But the provider has to actually break the contract, something
that hasn't been shown.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:01:23 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
>> >service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
>> >expect that to be true.
>>
>> Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
>> Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
>> it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
>> phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
>> didn't even inspect the new location before moving?
>
>That may be entirely impractical.

Then the subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>So he goes by the coverage map and/or
>CS rep.
>
>Now what?

The subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>John, you're tiring.

Nope.

>It's not always the customer's fault.

True.

>Sometimes
>it's the fault of the cellular provider.

True, but not in this case.

>In that case, it's up to the
>cellular provider to make good on things--in this case, "we said we had
>service but we don't, therefore there's no contract". That's simple law.

Wrong on all counts.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
> 21:13:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.
> >
> >John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
> >was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
> >to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.
> >
> >John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
> >the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
> >yourself and the world in which you live.
>
> Ad hominem. Sure sign of a desperate position. ;-)

But Elmo's correct, people get out of contracts all the time for a
variety of good reasons. Moving to an area where one doesnt have service
is a perfectly valid reason, despite your huffing and puffing.

Robert <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Bull- even "fit for purpose" has a definitive meaning- i.e. I can't
complain that the hammer I bought isn't fit for driving screws.

The cell phone and service described in the original post is still
100% "fit for the purpose" the OP bought it for. He's changed HIS
"purpose" by moving. Cingular hasn't changed the service in any way.

Now this the part where you say "spoken like cellular dealer you once
were..."

Which, while true, (I was a Cingular dealer years ago) DOES NOT
invalidate the argument. Of course, observing the rules of debate
were never your strong suit...

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> Robert <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > > that has no service.
> >
> > Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.
>
> Bull- even "fit for purpose" has a definitive meaning- i.e. I can't
> complain that the hammer I bought isn't fit for driving screws.
>
> The cell phone and service described in the original post is still
> 100% "fit for the purpose" the OP bought it for. He's changed HIS
> "purpose" by moving. Cingular hasn't changed the service in any way.


Nice try, he still can get out.

>
> Now this the part where you say "spoken like cellular dealer you once
> were..."
>
> Which, while true, (I was a Cingular dealer years ago) DOES NOT
> invalidate the argument. Of course, observing the rules of debate
> were never your strong suit...

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
> >the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
> >yourself and the world in which you live.
>
> Ad hominem. Sure sign of a desperate position. ;-)

Not at all. See, I *have* gotten out of contracts--for a variety of
reasons. It's no big deal.

You, on the other hand, are telling the world that there's no way to get
out of a contract.

You're wrong, and the facts have proven that. Yet you continue to bleat.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> See, I *have* gotten out of contracts--for a variety of
> reasons. It's no big deal.
>
> You, on the other hand, are telling the world that there's no way to get
> out of a contract.
>
> You're wrong, and the facts have proven that. Yet you continue to bleat.

I got out of a SprintPCS contract, and moved to Cingular about 4 weeks
ago.

or as someone else said long ago, putting the lie to claims of Contract
as unbending:



From: Flash ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Got Screwed
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 1999/10/26


People will tell you that because you signed a contract in which you
basically waived all of your rights, that you cannot seek legal resource
.... but it's just not true.

There are certain consumer protections that cannot be circumvented by
*any* contract.

This is one of the longest running misconceptions on this group. The
"absolve the company of any and all responsibility" - *contract*. While
it is a best case scenario wish-list for the corporation, it is not a
waiver of responsibility. They know this. Everyone has these contracts,
they are standard, but lawsuits still fly.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
04:53:52 GMT, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

>But Elmo's correct, people get out of contracts all the time for a
>variety of good reasons. Moving to an area where one doesnt have service
>is a perfectly valid reason, despite your huffing and puffing.

I disagree, despite your rudeness.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
07:56:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You, on the other hand, are telling the world that there's no way to get
>out of a contract.

Nope -- didn't say that -- not even close -- read more carefully. I said the
contract was binding. It is. I also said:

The cell company may LET a subscriber out of the contract, but only if it
can be persuaded to do so.

>You're wrong,

What's wrong are your misstatements.

>and the facts have proven that.

There haven't been any facts or proof that a cellular service contract can be
rescinded without penalty as a matter of law simply by moving out of the
service area. Hint: There's a good reason for that. ;-)

>Yet you continue to bleat.

More rudeness -- yet another sign of a desperate position.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
12:17:37 GMT, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> See, I *have* gotten out of contracts--for a variety of
>> reasons. It's no big deal.
>>
>> You, on the other hand, are telling the world that there's no way to get
>> out of a contract.
>>
>> You're wrong, and the facts have proven that. Yet you continue to bleat.
>
>I got out of a SprintPCS contract, and moved to Cingular about 4 weeks
>ago.
>
>or as someone else said long ago, putting the lie to claims of Contract
>as unbending:

What I wrote was "binding" (not unbending). Kindly stick to what I actually
say, rather than trying to distort my position by putting words in my mouth.

In this case the contract is binding. Nonetheless the OP *may* be able to get
out of it without penalty *if* the cellular provider can be *persuaded* to do
so. What the OP can't do is *force* it to do so.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
09:49:26 GMT, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>
>> Robert <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> > > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
>> > > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
>> > > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
>> > > that has no service.
>> >
>> > Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.
>>
>> Bull- even "fit for purpose" has a definitive meaning- i.e. I can't
>> complain that the hammer I bought isn't fit for driving screws.
>>
>> The cell phone and service described in the original post is still
>> 100% "fit for the purpose" the OP bought it for. He's changed HIS
>> "purpose" by moving. Cingular hasn't changed the service in any way.
>
>Nice try, he still can get out.

Only if the provider can be *persuaded* to do so.
It can't be *forced* to do so since it isn't in breach.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Nope -- didn't say that -- not even close -- read more carefully. I said the
> contract was binding. It is

Nonsense Thats what the cellular carriers want you to believe.

State, federal, and common law supercede