Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    JAC
    Guest
    Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    these complaints online.

    If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.

    Copy of letter:

    SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.

    In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.

    Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.

    Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.

    My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.



    See More: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS




  2. #2
    daye
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    I am no lawyer, so I am not sure what exactly is the state attorney
    general's office looking after. However, there's no specific damage alleged
    in your complaint, and also we are not clear what are you asking the
    attorney's general's office to do. Further more, you didn't say whether you
    believe Sprint's approach violate any law/regulations.


    "JAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    > - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    > these complaints online.
    >
    > If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    > get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.
    >
    > Copy of letter:
    >
    > SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    > 2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    > to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    > addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    > SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.
    >
    > In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    > called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    > purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    > and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    > used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    > services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    > modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    > representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    > Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.
    >
    > Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    > "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    > provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    > phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    > other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    > that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    > as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    > SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    > phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.
    >
    > Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    > purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    > early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    > Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    > now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    > Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    > additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    > sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    > for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    > fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    > "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.
    >
    > My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    > a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    > informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    > purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    > contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    > receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    > I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.






  3. #3
    JAC
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    As a consumer, I would have no idea whether they have technically
    violated any laws or regulations. That isn't my job.

    What I do know is that it doesn't seem right to sell a service and
    then change the rules after the fact, once customers have spent money.

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:57 -0400, "daye" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I am no lawyer, so I am not sure what exactly is the state attorney
    >general's office looking after. However, there's no specific damage alleged
    >in your complaint, and also we are not clear what are you asking the
    >attorney's general's office to do. Further more, you didn't say whether you
    >believe Sprint's approach violate any law/regulations.
    >
    >
    >"JAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    >> - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    >> these complaints online.
    >>
    >> If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    >> get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.
    >>
    >> Copy of letter:
    >>
    >> SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    >> 2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    >> to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    >> addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    >> SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.
    >>
    >> In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    >> called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    >> purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    >> and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    >> used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    >> services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    >> modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    >> representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    >> Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.
    >>
    >> Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    >> "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    >> provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    >> phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    >> other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    >> that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    >> as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    >> SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    >> phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.
    >>
    >> Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    >> purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    >> early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    >> Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    >> now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    >> Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    >> additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    >> sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    >> for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    >> fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    >> "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.
    >>
    >> My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    >> a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    >> informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    >> purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    >> contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    >> receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    >> I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.

    >





  4. #4
    JAC
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    I have no reasonable expectation that this would ever get resolved in
    the courts. My only point in even filing this is the hope of negative
    publicity this could bring on Sprint.

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:23:25 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > So don't terminate early. Your AA will be over long before this
    >would get through the courts.
    >
    >
    >JAC wrote:
    >> Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    >> - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    >> these complaints online.
    >>
    >> If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    >> get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.
    >>
    >> Copy of letter:
    >>
    >> SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    >> 2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    >> to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    >> addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    >> SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.
    >>
    >> In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    >> called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    >> purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    >> and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    >> used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    >> services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    >> modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    >> representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    >> Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.
    >>
    >> Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    >> "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    >> provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    >> phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    >> other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    >> that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    >> as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    >> SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    >> phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.
    >>
    >> Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    >> purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    >> early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    >> Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    >> now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    >> Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    >> additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    >> sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    >> for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    >> fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    >> "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.
    >>
    >> My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    >> a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    >> informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    >> purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    >> contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    >> receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    >> I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.





  5. #5
    e m
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    any wireless company can change thier terms and conditions at anytime
    when they feel like it .. it is in thier TERMS AND CONDITIONS read it
    !!!!!!!!!!!1

    JAC <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > As a consumer, I would have no idea whether they have technically
    > violated any laws or regulations. That isn't my job.
    >
    > What I do know is that it doesn't seem right to sell a service and
    > then change the rules after the fact, once customers have spent money.
    >
    > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:57 -0400, "daye" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >I am no lawyer, so I am not sure what exactly is the state attorney
    > >general's office looking after. However, there's no specific damage alleged
    > >in your complaint, and also we are not clear what are you asking the
    > >attorney's general's office to do. Further more, you didn't say whether you
    > >believe Sprint's approach violate any law/regulations.
    > >
    > >
    > >"JAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    > >> - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    > >> these complaints online.
    > >>
    > >> If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    > >> get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.
    > >>
    > >> Copy of letter:
    > >>
    > >> SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    > >> 2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    > >> to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    > >> addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    > >> SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.
    > >>
    > >> In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    > >> called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    > >> purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    > >> and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    > >> used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    > >> services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    > >> modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    > >> representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    > >> Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.
    > >>
    > >> Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    > >> "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    > >> provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    > >> phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    > >> other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    > >> that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    > >> as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    > >> SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    > >> phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.
    > >>
    > >> Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    > >> purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    > >> early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    > >> Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    > >> now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    > >> Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    > >> additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    > >> sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    > >> for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    > >> fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    > >> "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.
    > >>
    > >> My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    > >> a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    > >> informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    > >> purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    > >> contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    > >> receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    > >> I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.

    > >

    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  6. #6
    p lane
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    I am no attorney either, but if a company such as sprint acts to deceive
    the public either by intentional act or accidental, and this came before
    you as a person on a jury how would you vote---I have no problem with
    sprint, use it everyday, however right is right and wrong is wrong--I
    refer you to the very excellent post of Nomen Nescio on this site on
    wed 10thof august in which he points out that the courts or whomever
    frown on such deception in fine print and otherwise

    My personal experience was that I went into Sprint store to just get
    another line--was aware of vision, but had no idea what i would want
    with it --then the sales person at sprint explained the laptop
    connection--got the cable, got vision and use it some--love the
    convenience when I am away from home--they used this as a very effective
    sales tool for me--glad they did--however, if they are now changing the
    rules--I personally believe there is a problem--I can't explain what
    wrong--but I know wrong when I see it.

    but it reminds me of a drug dealer giving a potential client a sample of
    the product to get them hooked, and then proceeds to pull in the line
    comments??

    [email protected] (e m) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > any wireless company can change thier terms and conditions at anytime
    > when they feel like it .. it is in thier TERMS AND CONDITIONS read it
    > !!!!!!!!!!!1
    >
    > JAC <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > As a consumer, I would have no idea whether they have technically
    > > violated any laws or regulations. That isn't my job.
    > >
    > > What I do know is that it doesn't seem right to sell a service and
    > > then change the rules after the fact, once customers have spent money.
    > >
    > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:57 -0400, "daye" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >I am no lawyer, so I am not sure what exactly is the state attorney
    > > >general's office looking after. However, there's no specific damage alleged
    > > >in your complaint, and also we are not clear what are you asking the
    > > >attorney's general's office to do. Further more, you didn't say whether you
    > > >believe Sprint's approach violate any law/regulations.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >"JAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > >news:[email protected]
    > > >> Here is the text of a complain that I filed with my state's AG office
    > > >> - consumer protection division. Most states have the ability to file
    > > >> these complaints online.
    > > >>
    > > >> If we all file this complaint with our state AG office, maybe we can
    > > >> get somewhere on this Vision TOS issue.
    > > >>
    > > >> Copy of letter:
    > > >>
    > > >> SprintPCS offered a low-speed mobile data service prior to the fall of
    > > >> 2002 called "Wireless Web". This service allowed select mobile phones
    > > >> to be used as modems to provide low-speed data connectivity. In
    > > >> addition, this service provided some in-phone data services. Select
    > > >> SprintPCS plans had data usage allotments.
    > > >>
    > > >> In the fall of 2002, SprintPCS introduced a high-speed data system
    > > >> called "Vision". To use this new, faster system customers had to
    > > >> purchase new Vision-capable phones. In addition, SprintPCS marketed
    > > >> and advertised "connectivity kits" that allowed Vision phones to be
    > > >> used as modems. Vision phones also included some in-phone data
    > > >> services in addition to the ability of the phone to be used as a
    > > >> modem. SprintPCS store sales representatives and customer service
    > > >> representatives heavily promoted the high-speed data features of the
    > > >> Vision service as incentive to switch from the older, slower phones.
    > > >>
    > > >> Shortly after releasing "Vision" services, SprintPCS introduced
    > > >> "Unlimited Vision" monthly plans to further stimulate sales and
    > > >> provide an incentive for customers to switch plans and upgrade their
    > > >> phones. Sprint representatives made direct statements to me (and many
    > > >> other customers who have complained on the Internet about this issue)
    > > >> that Unlimited Vision included both the ability to use Vision phones
    > > >> as modem and the in-phone data features. This was a sales tactic of
    > > >> SprintPCS representatives. The "connection kits" to allow
    > > >> phone-as-modem use were sold to the customers in the Sprint stores.
    > > >>
    > > >> Now a year later, after customers have purchased Vision phones,
    > > >> purchased connection kits and signed up for Vision plans containing
    > > >> early termination penalties, SprintPCS has stopped allowing the use of
    > > >> Vision phones as modems under their "Unlimited Vision" plans. Sprint
    > > >> now claims that only the in-phone data features qualify for "Unlimited
    > > >> Vision." Usage of the phone as a modem now costs nearly $80 per month
    > > >> additional. This directly contradicts the information that SprintPCS
    > > >> sales personnel and customer service representatives gave customers
    > > >> for over a year. Sprint's only notification to customers of this
    > > >> fundamental change was new fine print wording introduced in a revised
    > > >> "Terms of Service" insert in the monthly bill.
    > > >>
    > > >> My purchase decision was based SOLELY on my ability to use my phone as
    > > >> a high-speed modem intermittently when traveling. Had I been properly
    > > >> informed of this policy at the time of purchase I would not have
    > > >> purchased a new phone, signed up for a new plan and agreed to a new
    > > >> contract with early termination penalties. Now, not only can I not
    > > >> receive the service that I paid for, I am under a financial penalty if
    > > >> I desire to switch services due to an early termination penalty.
    > > >

    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  7. #7
    daye
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    I think their defense would be that they never intent to cheat. However,
    they realized they miscalculated something, and would like to fix the hole.
    What's more, they found they are lucky that everything is covered under
    industrial standard terms and fine prints.

    "p lane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I am no attorney either, but if a company such as sprint acts to deceive
    > the public either by intentional act or accidental, and this came before
    > you as a person on a jury how would you vote---I have no problem with
    > sprint, use it everyday, however right is right and wrong is wrong--I
    > refer you to the very excellent post of Nomen Nescio on this site on
    > wed 10thof august in which he points out that the courts or whomever
    > frown on such deception in fine print and otherwise
    >
    > My personal experience was that I went into Sprint store to just get
    > another line--was aware of vision, but had no idea what i would want
    > with it --then the sales person at sprint explained the laptop
    > connection--got the cable, got vision and use it some--love the
    > convenience when I am away from home--they used this as a very effective
    > sales tool for me--glad they did--however, if they are now changing the
    > rules--I personally believe there is a problem--I can't explain what
    > wrong--but I know wrong when I see it.
    >
    > but it reminds me of a drug dealer giving a potential client a sample of
    > the product to get them hooked, and then proceeds to pull in the line
    > comments??






  8. #8
    MickCole
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS


    It seems to me that a remedy is available in the form of an injunction
    requiring Sprint to live up to the bargain it made with its
    customers--namely, allowing unlimited use of Vision, without regard to
    whether the use is on the phone or using the phone as a modem. IMHO,
    the clause in the (dis)Advantage Agreement is not enforceable. As
    always, opinions may vary.
    Mick

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  9. #9
    JAC
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    No, actually they can't. That is the whole purpose of consumer
    protection divisions of AG offices. Just because a restaurant puts up
    a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
    doesn't mean they can.

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:58:39 -0000, [email protected] (e m)
    wrote:

    >any wireless company can change thier terms and conditions at anytime
    >when they feel like it .. it is in thier TERMS AND CONDITIONS read it
    >!!!!!!!!!!!1
    >
    >JAC <[email protected]> wrote in article
    ><[email protected]>:
    >> As a consumer, I would have no idea whether they have technically
    >> violated any laws or regulations. That isn't my job.
    >>
    >> What I do know is that it doesn't seem right to sell a service and
    >> then change the rules after the fact, once customers have spent money.
    >>





  10. #10
    daye
    Guest

    Re: letter to Attorney General Consumer Protection Division concering SprintPCS

    Well you are right that certain right can not be waived. A good example is
    that although a parking garage will print this on their ticket 'we are not
    responsible for the damage or lost of your car', but they are still
    responsible if that happens. The restaurant case is vague, because if the
    restaurant is private owned, they can refuse serving you at their own
    judgment. I believe it's widely accepted that business can change the term
    when there is the clause of changing terms in the term.

    "JAC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > No, actually they can't. That is the whole purpose of consumer
    > protection divisions of AG offices. Just because a restaurant puts up
    > a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
    > doesn't mean they can.






  • Similar Threads