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

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

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

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

Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that they
hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.

Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract when
they have no coverage.

---

› 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:
|
| >
| > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
|
| >
| > Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate any
| > common law or implied warranty.
|
| Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
| court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that they
| hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.

100% false

|
| Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
| advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract when
| they have no coverage.

That is correct, but that is also covered in the contract, and ALWAYS upheld
in court in favor of the legally binding contract. No carrier promises
blanket coverage. He is paying for a service, and is getting the service he
is paying for. He knew there was know signal in his apartment before the
contract was effective, and chose to accept it. The contracts are 100%
legal, as long as the carrier holds up everything on their side of the
bargain. It appears we are going in circles. I and every court know that the
contract is completely legally binding. You apparently wish they weren't and
for some reason think posting it in Usenet will make people believe you.
Hopefully no one with an IQ lower than yours has spent a ton of money on
court costs trying to take a carrier to court. If they have, I know they
wasted no money on the lawyer, so no lawyer would even think of taking the
case.

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]...
> |
> | >
> | > Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate any
> | > common law or implied warranty.
> |
> | Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
> | court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that they
> | hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.
>
> 100% false
>
> |
> | Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
> | advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract when
> | they have no coverage.
>
> That is correct, but that is also covered in the contract, and ALWAYS upheld
> in court in favor of the legally binding contract.

It usually doesnt get to court. A letter to one's State's Attorney
general generates a "whats going on here" letter, and no carrier is
going to court over anything less than $250.

And where did you get this silly notion that a carriers contract is 100%
valid. It's not.

"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]...
| > |
| > | >
| > | > Then you know the contract is legally binding and does not violate
any
| > | > common law or implied warranty.
| > |
| > | Sorry, I know no such thing. Each and every item is open to what any
| > | court of law may rule. Contracts are wish lists from carriers, that
they
| > | hope folks will blindly follow. Like you apparently do.
| >
| > 100% false
| >
| > |
| > | Common Law, State Law, Implied warranties takes precedence. You can't
| > | advertise "Can you hear me now" and then hold people to a contract
when
| > | they have no coverage.
| >
| > That is correct, but that is also covered in the contract, and ALWAYS
upheld
| > in court in favor of the legally binding contract.
|
| It usually doesnt get to court. A letter to one's State's Attorney
| general generates a "whats going on here" letter, and no carrier is
| going to court over anything less than $250.
|
| And where did you get this silly notion that a carriers contract is 100%
| valid. It's not.

circles

Here is how another user properly explained the Cellular contract:

==================

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.

======================

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Here is how another user properly explained the Cellular contract:
|
| ==================
|
| 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.
|
| ======================

Circles

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

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Here is how another user properly explained the Cellular contract:
> |
> | ==================
> |
> | 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.
> |
> | ======================
>
> Circles

Only when you keep insisting the a cellular carriers contract can over
ride everything.

It can't.

"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]...
| > | Here is how another user properly explained the Cellular contract:
| > |
| > | ==================
| > |
| > | 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.
| > |
| > | ======================
| >
| > Circles
|
| Only when you keep insisting the a cellular carriers contract can over
| ride everything.
|
| It can't.

Never have I insisted a cellular contract can override everything. Just in
OPs situation, nothing has been done to justify a lawsuit or to expect
getting out of contract.

Circles, kill file <wink>

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

> Never have I insisted a cellular contract can override everything. Just in
> OPs situation, nothing has been done to justify a lawsuit or to expect
> getting out of contract.

He said he was not receiving service, thats ample grounds for getting
out of a service contract, and a letter to one's State's Attorney
general usually works if the carrier is difficult.