Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where
>>> was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>>
>> And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such
>> a level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>>
>> Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>> al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it
>> time and again, so our contract is null and void"?
>
> Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
> your own wireless carrier and offer it.
>
>> Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if
>> they push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything
>> we want, you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't
>> have to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.
>
> Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes for
> any of the wireless companies.

I think that's why the NY Consumer Advocate is getting involved. What
Sprint is doing is not in the contract and customers didn't agree to it
so it's just bullying. Believe me, as a business owner myself I'm all
for keeping government out of my affairs but when a business that is a
public utility takes advantage of a group of customers who have no
voice, that's when a Consumer Advocate should step in to protect those
who have no voice. Remember, judges can take any part of a contract
they feel is unfair and toss it out as "against public policy" and, by
law, any ambiguities are always interpreted against the party who wrote
the contract.