"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
> Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
> unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.
>

When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the other
party for service, that one party can write anything it wants, and does,
into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it. Any landlord is
playing the same game with his lease.

Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can change
the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel it without
cause. The only requirement would be to state this up front and make the
customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with the US Government,
they've now got down to a science. You simply turn it on and you've
already agreed to everything.

I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the contract
is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full cooperation
of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.

Larry
--
While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
It just isn't fair.