Getting out of 2 year contract

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
suspend this fee?

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:

> I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> suspend this fee?

Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
Corporate HQ.

The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <RM123-C918AA.14385231072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>,
Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

> In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
> Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> > contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> > were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> > same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> > signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> > a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> > suspend this fee?
>
> Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
> Corporate HQ.
>
> The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
> you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?

You can't be lawyer if you pull that principle out of hat and think it
applies here.

It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
not Cingular's fault that he is moving.

He should pay the $70 and be done with it. Fight it, he'll lose, and
his credit will suffer. He has no basis to fight it, he's under
contract.

If you go on a 3 week vacation and Cingular has no service there, do you
call CS and demand a refund for those weeks? I think you would.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>
> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>

OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
that Verizon does have service? -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert" <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:RM123-C918AA.14385231072004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
> Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> > contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> > were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> > same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> > signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> > a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> > suspend this fee?
>
> Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
> Corporate HQ.
>
> The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
> you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?

Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
service it never provided? I don't see anything about guaranteed blanket
coverage. Are you saying that they are responsible for providing new
service, based on someone's desire to move? Can you please point out any
industry that does this/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de>...

> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> that Verizon does have service? -Dave

I'd blame Cingular... IF Cingular was somehow forcing the OP to move
to a non-Cingular area.

However, since the OP is moving due to circumstances beyond Cingular's
control, why are they to blame?

The OP received due consideration for his committment- a reduced price
(or free) phone. Cingular is one of the few wireless providers that
offers no-contract service if you supply your own hardware or pay full
price for equipment. No one forced the OP to commit to two years.
Why should Cingular "eat" their subsidy because the OP decides to
move?

If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
your new house?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>
>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>that Verizon does have service? -Dave

There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
called a free market.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
> C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >
> >OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> >that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
> called a free market.

Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.

If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
State Law etc takes precedence.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert" <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400,
"Dave
> > C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you
don't
> > >> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's
also
> > >> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> > >
> > >OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
area
> > >that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> > There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage.
It's
> > called a free market.
>
> Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> State Law etc takes precedence.

And after a year, you have shown no proof that this is the case. You blab
on like a whiney child about this, and yet the contracts HAVE been upheld,
and no carrier has been ordered to immediately terminate service when a
customer moves outside traditional coverage areas for that carrier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <g8adnWmXM9_i-JHcRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
> service it never provided?

I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
holds the burden here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Dave C. answered:

>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>>
>
>
> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
>
certainly NOT Cingular.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Robert the slobberer answered:

> In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
>>C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>>>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>>>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>>>
>>>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>>>that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>>
>>There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
>>called a free market.
>
>
> Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> State Law etc takes precedence.

you really are a putz shithead.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of co mparable coverage. It's
>> called a free market.
>
>Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.

Not even a nice try, as you would know if you'd actually done any homework,
instead of just spewing -- as I've made clear, I have *no* connection to *any*
cellular company other than as a customer.

>If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.

Not true.

>The CONTRACT i
>hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
>State Law etc takes precedence.

As you a lawyer and is this a legal opinion? Or is it just more misinformed
ranting? ;-)

Under the circumstances as stated, the contract is binding on the OP.

Moral: If you want the freedom to cancel, then don't sign a term contract.
Go month-to-month, as I do.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0407312229.197b362f@posting.google.com> on 31 Jul 2004 23:29:37
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>> that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
>I'd blame Cingular... IF Cingular was somehow forcing the OP to move
>to a non-Cingular area.
>
>However, since the OP is moving due to circumstances beyond Cingular's
>control, why are they to blame?
>
>The OP received due consideration for his committment- a reduced price
>(or free) phone. Cingular is one of the few wireless providers that
>offers no-contract service if you supply your own hardware or pay full
>price for equipment. No one forced the OP to commit to two years.
>Why should Cingular "eat" their subsidy because the OP decides to
>move?
>
>If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
>miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
>your new house?

Well put.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> >
> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
area
> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> >
> certainly NOT Cingular.

So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
Cingular towers, who is? -Dave

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <9O1Pc.5055$54.79655@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
> >miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
> >your new house?
>
> Well put.

No but many will happily give a refund. Verizon typically does upon
request.

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <wN1Pc.5054$54.79714@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug
> 2004
> 03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:
>
> >In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of co mparable coverage.
> >> It's
> >> called a free market.
> >
> >Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> Not even a nice try, as you would know if you'd actually done any homework,
> instead of just spewing -- as I've made clear, I have *no* connection to
> *any*
> cellular company other than as a customer.
>
> >If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.
>
> Not true.

Happens all the time.

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <2n4at3FscmrkU4@uni-berlin.de>,
Jimbo Jones w/SpicyHeadberg <JJones@SpicyHB.com> wrote:

> Dave C. answered:
>
> >>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >>
> >
> >
> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> >
> certainly NOT Cingular.

In most cases, a well placed letter or two will get one out of a
contract in such a case if the TRULY is no service (not just not as good
service).

 

[Robert]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <2n4avfFscmrkU5@uni-berlin.de>,
Jimbo Jones w/SpicyHeadberg <JJones@SpicyHB.com> wrote:

> Robert the slobberer answered:
>
> > In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >>
> >>In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
> >>C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >>>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >>>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >>>
> >>>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
> >>>area
> >>>that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >>
> >>There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage.
> >>It's
> >>called a free market.
> >
> >
> > Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
> >
> > If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> > hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> > State Law etc takes precedence.
>
> you really are a putz shithead.

And you demonstrate that you must have been looking in a mirror by your
use of such language in a public forum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-C852C7.06250601082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:25:02 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <wN1Pc.5054$54.79714@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug
>> 2004
>> 03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>> >If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.
>>
>> Not true.
>
>Happens all the time.

The cell company may LET a subscriber out of the contract, but only if it can
be persuaded to do so. Under these circumstances, as I've noted several
times, the contract is binding.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-318724.06243901082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:24:35 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <9O1Pc.5055$54.79655@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
>> >miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
>> >your new house?
>>
>> Well put.
>
>No but many will happily give a refund. Verizon typically does upon
>request.

Proof? Or more hot air?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2n4c84Fs39bvU1@uni-berlin.de> on Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:16:08 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>> >
>> certainly NOT Cingular.
>
>So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
>Cingular towers, who is? -Dave

Irrelevant. Cingular isn't responsible for placing towers in the particular
area to which the OP *chose* to move. (That some other carrier does have
coverage is likewise irrelevant.) Cingular would be responsible if and only
if coverage (a) didn't exist in the first place or (b) was significantly
reduced. Neither applies in this case.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-31571A.06235201082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
06:23:52 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <g8adnWmXM9_i-JHcRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
>> service it never provided?
>
>I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
>represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
>holds the burden here.

Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
and choose accordingly. If the subscriber chooses to move to a non-coverage
area, then it's unrealistic to expect the carrier to take the loss (e.g., of
the subsidy on the phone the OP is using).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
> >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
> >holds the burden here.
>
> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
> coverage in that area, but not that particular location.

But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.

It's long past time for the cellular providers to quit hiding behind the
"we said it, but it isn't so, and that's your problem" thing with
respect to their coverage maps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
> coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
> simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
> and choose accordingly.

We aren't talking about NEW service here; we're talking about someone
using the provider's map data to determine where to move to, given that
he has existing service and wants to continue it.

He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
expect that to be true.

They can't hide behind the old "yeah, we said so, but it isn't true, so
it's your fault" thing.