the URL Navas lost

[Robert]

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

Navas incorrectly claims that folks only get out of contracts by the
grace of Cellular carriers. Nonsense.

Letters from States Attorney Generals for customers without service
generates such action all the time.

Here is the URL I posted yesterday that I thought might give NAVAS some
education on Contracts.



<http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/browse_by_topic/browse_parent/browse
_child/content/show_content.php?articleid=1001673>


A 20 second search on Google would demonstrate many other places with
information on getting out of contracts. Real Estate is another area
where contracts are nullified. People also get out of Lease contracts
all the time too for valid cause.

Failure to perform is a common reason. You see there's another common
law principle Navas has always ignored. "IMPLIED WARRANTY" If you run
commercials about your National Coverage, then you better have coverage
matching what you are purposely trying to lead people to believe. If you
don't a "you had 15 days" won't cut it. Indeed that was a large part of
the consent decree between carriers and States Attorney Generals a week
ago. Misleading advertising.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <RM143-996F75.08105903082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
13:11:00 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>Navas incorrectly claims that folks only get out of contracts by the
>grace of Cellular carriers. Nonsense.

I never said that. Folks can of course always get out of cellular contracts
by terminating them, and paying the termination charges. What's been at issue
here is termination charges for a valid and binding contract, which can only
be avoided by the grace of Cellular carriers (your words).

>Letters from States Attorney Generals for customers without service
>generates such action all the time.

Now that's nonsense, in the case here where the reason for no service is that
the customer moved out of the service area.

Got anything to back that up? (I didn't think so.)

>Here is the URL I posted yesterday that I thought might give NAVAS some
>education on Contracts.
>
><http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/browse_by_topic/browse_parent/browse
>_child/content/show_content.php?articleid=1001673>

More manageable link -- <http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2B9154F8>

Unfortunately for you, that web page has no relevance to your claim that a
customer has the right to terminate without penalty when the reason for no
service is moving out of the coverage area.

I asked you which of the seven defenses you thought applied, but you didn't
respond. (Why am I not surprised.)

>A 20 second search on Google would demonstrate many other places with
>information on getting out of contracts. Real Estate is another area
>where contracts are nullified. People also get out of Lease contracts
>all the time too for valid cause.

The key words there are "valid cause." Unfortunately for you, there is no
"valid cause" when the reason for no service is moving out of the coverage
area.

>Failure to perform is a common reason.

There is no "failure to perform" (a term that doesn't appear in your cited
article above when the reason for no service is moving out of the coverage
area.

>You see there's another common
>law principle Navas has always ignored. "IMPLIED WARRANTY"

Doesn't apply when the reason for no service is moving out of the coverage
area.

>If you run
>commercials about your National Coverage, then you better have coverage
>matching what you are purposely trying to lead people to believe.

No cellular carrier guarantees complete coverage; in fact, they specifically
disclaim it.

>If you
>don't a "you had 15 days" won't cut it.

Actually it does in the relevant circumstances. Of course it doesn't apply
when the reason for no service is moving out of the coverage area.

>Indeed that was a large part of
>the consent decree between carriers and States Attorney Generals a week
>ago.

You have it backwards --
<http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=533>:

Under the terms of the agreement, Cingular Wireless, Sprint PCS and
Verizon Wireless must ... give consumers at least two weeks to
terminate service contracts without incurring penalties...

>Misleading advertising.

No -- just another misleading statement by you.

--
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?)

I always know when a response is 4 times longer than a post that I have
hit a nail on the head.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <RM143-328675.11373403082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
16:37:34 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>I always know when a response is 4 times longer than a post that I have
>hit a nail on the head.

It's longer (albeit not 4 times) because it has real substance, unlike your
wild claims.

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