Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree, if something on the carrier's end has changed. Of course as we all
> know and I am the only one dumb enough to try to convince you of, a letter
> to the state's attorney general will be laughed at and thrown away.

Yes, as anyone who has read "alt.cellular.xxx" knows, wrting to one's
States' Attorney General has proven successful for many people, when
cellular Carriers are obstinate, and has not been laughed at or thrown
away.

The common law principle of "Fit for Purpose" applies. They sell you a
phone for cellular service, they can not hold you to a contract if you
have no service.

---

› See More: Cancel without paying ETF due to living and working in a dead zone

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>,
| "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| > I agree, if something on the carrier's end has changed. Of course as we
all
| > know and I am the only one dumb enough to try to convince you of, a
letter
| > to the state's attorney general will be laughed at and thrown away.
|
| Yes, as anyone who has read "alt.cellular.xxx" knows, wrting to one's
| States' Attorney General has proven successful for many people, when
| cellular Carriers are obstinate, and has not been laughed at or thrown
| away.
|
| The common law principle of "Fit for Purpose" applies. They sell you a
| phone for cellular service, they can not hold you to a contract if you
| have no service.

Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows that is
completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold you to
that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | In article <[email protected]>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> |
> | > I agree, if something on the carrier's end has changed. Of course as we
> all
> | > know and I am the only one dumb enough to try to convince you of, a
> letter
> | > to the state's attorney general will be laughed at and thrown away.
> |
> | Yes, as anyone who has read "alt.cellular.xxx" knows, wrting to one's
> | States' Attorney General has proven successful for many people, when
> | cellular Carriers are obstinate, and has not been laughed at or thrown
> | away.
> |
> | The common law principle of "Fit for Purpose" applies. They sell you a
> | phone for cellular service, they can not hold you to a contract if you
> | have no service.
>
> Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows that is
> completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold you to
> that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.

Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect from
anyone they can not provide service to. And Stop making like their whole
contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT. It is a corporate wish list that
they use to hammer some folks with, but much of it is unenforceable,
such as collecting money from you when they are not providing service.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I agree, if something on the carrier's end has changed. Of course as we
all
> > know and I am the only one dumb enough to try to convince you of, a
letter
> > to the state's attorney general will be laughed at and thrown away.
>
> Yes, as anyone who has read "alt.cellular.xxx" knows, wrting to one's
> States' Attorney General has proven successful for many people, when
> cellular Carriers are obstinate, and has not been laughed at or thrown
> away.

No- anybody reading these groups knows that its the first thing out of your
mouth. I have seen a mere handful of posts from others saying they have done
it. It has the same effect on a company as a BBB complaint in most states.
>
> The common law principle of "Fit for Purpose" applies. They sell you a
> phone for cellular service, they can not hold you to a contract if you
> have no service.

But no carrier provides balnket coverage. That's what the 14 days are for.
After that, you have agreed to the terms of the Service Agreement.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| >
| > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows
that is
| > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold you
to
| > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
|
| Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect from
| anyone they can not provide service to.

I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall into the
less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an insult,
it is meant as pity.


| And Stop making like their whole
| contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.

It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past. I have not
seen a single instance of a judge ruling in favor of some idiot trying to
get out of a contract with a carrier when the carrier has provided
everything they promised.


| It is a corporate wish list that
| they use to hammer some folks with, but much of it is unenforceable,
| such as collecting money from you when they are not providing service.

That is your main issue here I believe. for whatever reason, you think that
the person is not being provided a service, which they are.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows
> that is
> | > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold you
> to
> | > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
> |
> | Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect from
> | anyone they can not provide service to.
>
> I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall into the
> less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an insult,
> it is meant as pity.
>
>
> | And Stop making like their whole
> | contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.
>
> It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past.

And more often have supported claims by consumers.


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consu...l_claim_01.htm

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>,
| "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >
| > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | >
| > | > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows
| > that is
| > | > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold
you
| > to
| > | > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
| > |
| > | Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect from
| > | anyone they can not provide service to.
| >
| > I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall into
the
| > less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an
insult,
| > it is meant as pity.
| >
| >
| > | And Stop making like their whole
| > | contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.
| >
| > It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past.
|
| And more often have supported claims by consumers.
|
|
| http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consu...l_claim_01.htm

I have ever once seen a cellular contract overturned on court.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | In article <[email protected]>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:[email protected]...
> | > | >
> | > | > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time knows
> | > that is
> | > | > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can hold
> you
> | > to
> | > | > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
> | > |
> | > | Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect from
> | > | anyone they can not provide service to.
> | >
> | > I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall into
> the
> | > less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an
> insult,
> | > it is meant as pity.
> | >
> | >
> | > | And Stop making like their whole
> | > | contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.
> | >
> | > It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past.
> |
> | And more often have supported claims by consumers.
> |
> |
> | http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consu...l_claim_01.htm
>
> I have ever once seen a cellular contract overturned on court.

It rarely gets to court, after an Attorney General's office gets
involved, the Carrier capitulates.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>,
| "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >
| > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | In article <[email protected]>,
| > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > | > news:[email protected]...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time
knows
| > | > that is
| > | > | > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can
hold
| > you
| > | > to
| > | > | > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
| > | > |
| > | > | Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect
from
| > | > | anyone they can not provide service to.
| > | >
| > | > I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall
into
| > the
| > | > less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an
| > insult,
| > | > it is meant as pity.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | And Stop making like their whole
| > | > | contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.
| > | >
| > | > It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past.
| > |
| > | And more often have supported claims by consumers.
| > |
| > |
| > | http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consu...l_claim_01.htm
| >
| > I have ever once seen a cellular contract overturned on court.
|
| It rarely gets to court, after an Attorney General's office gets
| involved, the Carrier capitulates.

Only if the carriers decides they want to let the customer out of contract.
The contract is still a legally binding document, and most of the contracts
cover the clause so that the end user also has to pay any court costs if
he/she does decide to go to court.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | In article <[email protected]>,
> | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:[email protected]...
> | > | In article <[email protected]>,
> | > | "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > | > news:[email protected]...
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Actually anyone who has read this forum for any length of time
> knows
> | > | > that is
> | > | > | > completely false, and anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they can
> hold
> | > you
> | > | > to
> | > | > | > that contract for any purpose that is beyond their control.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Your insulting me will not enable Cingular to continue to collect
> from
> | > | > | anyone they can not provide service to.
> | > | >
> | > | > I don't see as how I unsulted you unless you are saying you fall
> into
> | > the
> | > | > less than 10 IQ category. If that is the case, it is not meant as an
> | > insult,
> | > | > it is meant as pity.
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > | And Stop making like their whole
> | > | > | contract has force of law, IT DOES NOT.
> | > | >
> | > | > It does, as many small claims courts have ruled on in the past.
> | > |
> | > | And more often have supported claims by consumers.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | http://www.consumeraffairs.com/consu...l_claim_01.htm
> | >
> | > I have ever once seen a cellular contract overturned on court.
> |
> | It rarely gets to court, after an Attorney General's office gets
> | involved, the Carrier capitulates.
>
> Only if the carriers decides they want to let the customer out of contract.

Somehow a letter from the Attorney General's office asking "Whats going
on here?" usually produces that result. Again the contract is just the
carrier's wish list, and much of it has zero force of law.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Again the contract is just the
| carrier's wish list, and much of it has zero force of law.

All of it is 100% legally binding, and always holds up in court. I guess
this is the end of our discussion since you obviously know nothing of the
legal system.

"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> All of it is 100% legally binding, and always holds up in court. I guess
> this is the end of our discussion since you obviously know nothing of the
> legal system.
>
>

Jason- you're wasting your time here. The troll is known for his mistruths
and opinionated posts. He doesn't post form experience- its more of a false
sense of importance.

But you are right and he is wrong- the contract is enforceable. If it
weren't, some court somewhere along the line would have ordered carriers to
change it to comply with the law.

And Robby- one more thing for you tochew on. Many states forward complaints
to the BBB, and like the BBB, as long as the company shows documentation
that they have done the right thing, the State Attorney's office will
consider the issue resolved, just like the BBB. I speak from experience
with both entities, so unless you have a URL to prove otherwise, shut the
hell up.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Again the contract is just the
> | carrier's wish list, and much of it has zero force of law.
>
> All of it is 100% legally binding, and always holds up in court. I guess
> this is the end of our discussion since you obviously know nothing of the
> legal system.

NOPE. Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence.


and my son is a high paid lawyer.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > | Again the contract is just the
> > | carrier's wish list, and much of it has zero force of law.
> >
> > All of it is 100% legally binding, and always holds up in court. I guess
> > this is the end of our discussion since you obviously know nothing of
the
> > legal system.
>
> NOPE. Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence.
>
>
> and my son is a high paid lawyer.

Which proves that success, like intelligence, is known to skip a generation.

Maybe your son could point us to a single court decision (within the last
year) where a cellular carrier was ordered to change the terms of their
Service Agreement to make it compliant with statute.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>,
| "Jason Cothran" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >
| > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | Again the contract is just the
| > | carrier's wish list, and much of it has zero force of law.
| >
| > All of it is 100% legally binding, and always holds up in court. I guess
| > this is the end of our discussion since you obviously know nothing of
the
| > legal system.
|
| NOPE. Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence.
|
|
| and my son is a high paid lawyer.

Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate any
common law or implied warranty.