> These folks do need an > attourney, but not to fight the bill. The need one to explain the > importance > of not being idiots to them.
Well said. IMOO when I do retain legal counsel it is usually to make certain I am dotting every "i", and crossing every "t" so there is no reasonable stone left unturned in an understanding (contract). But there are too many times when I have seen a company (or tax agency!) put it to a person for any excuse possible. It is not always malicious, often borne of ignorance and can be usually resolved intelligently in my experience. That assumes intelligence on both sides of a fence, which is not always the case. The few times I got pushed into a corner with the "We got you now you SOB" game I have been able to deal with the matter rationally, and have never had to retain counsel for guidance other than a real estate deal when a buyer had changed his offer 3 times, each time not in my favor, after the initial contract was signed. The last time he made a change I retained counsel and declined his last revision and killed the deal when he would not honor his part of the previously revised agreement. I had no problem refusing to refund any part of his $1,000 deposit as he cost me 2 additional months of mortgage expense through his delays (this was back in 1978). And it cost me legal fees to make certain I was on solid legal ground before refusing to hand back his deposit simply because he changed his mind. His failure to execute his part of the agreement cost me real cash, and the deposit made certain I was not hurt too much (in all it cost me about $75 after the 2 months added expense and legal fees). In the few other disputes I have had with a vendor it was not me looking to harpoon anyone. It was once because of intentional weasel-wording (Best Buy laptop service contract comes to mind, I ended up eating that one - never again...), a vendor rep not understanding the facts and unintentionally misrepresenting some details about a promotional deal (luckily the rep had eMailed me his offer, so that was quickly handled), and Nextel being asked if any additional fees would be incurred when closing an account, and porting a phone # to AT&T, when I was over 8 months beyond my contract expiration. That Nextel beef was taken to the mat on principle alone. Wrong is wrong. They eventually made it right. That said, I too abhor situations when folks place a needless drain on a company when they commit to a deal, the company incurs cost in terms of real time, effort and expense, only to have the customer back out at the last moment regardless of a contractual agreement. It has happened to me in years gone by, but I always chalked it up to experience, and began to pick my prospects more carefully. I also hate seeing folks who give our industry (automotive retail) a black eye when they get greedy and end up hurting consumers through intentional misrepresentation. In the end these idiots always seem to get theirs - although it takes time. Most recently a person directly responsible for our friend Ed almost getting stung (I interceded with a client and got Ed taken care of) ended up going to prison for fraudulent activity (Matt Hunter, in Buffalo, NY). It took 5 or 6 years to see that happen, but he did get his "reward". It was great seeing him in handcuffs. He cost a lot of dealers I know a huge chunk of change due to his weasel-wording ways. He brought his ruination upon his own head. Anyway, I do not wish to be misunderstood. Retaining an attorney is a no-win situation if a person wants to try to overcome a clean and clear contractual agreement, as a deal is a deal even if it does seem unfair later on - unless there is something unlawful or intentionally underhanded involved. Folks crying foul when a variable rate interest mortgage gets reset find little sympathy in me. But when there is evidence of forgery and unsubstantiated income numbers are filled in for a consumer I do find myself feeling a wrong ought to be righted. But not with my tax dollars! In short, yes, read the contract and do not sign if it is "too complicated to understand". Some folks ought not be allowed to be amongst us for lack of intelligence. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Smith > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [NF] Family Racks Up $19,370 Cell Phone Bill > > > Honestly, people like this family drive me nuts. I think AT+T > deserves to be > paid, as the family signed a contract , agreed to their terms, > and then used > the product. Why should AT+T not be paid? Read your contracts, people. If > you don't like the terms, don't sign the document. I see this sort of > baloney every day here in automotive retail, and the beginning and the end > of it for me at least is that it's the buyers responsibility to know what > they sign up for. I'd bet the international rates were not hidden > but rather > dear old Dad never read the contract. And their comment about why didn't > AT+T warn us is another classic example of consumer stupidity. Do > you REALLY > want corporations to look over your shoulder and second guess all your > spending habits? The "safeguards" they put on debit cards are bad > enough now > so many folks have to literally call and ask permission to spend their own > money before they go shopping ( this is always in the news around > Christmas > ). Corporate paternalism drives me crazy, it does. These folks do need an > attourney, but not to fight the bill. The need one to explain the > importance > of not being idiots to them. > > David Smith > Systems Administrator > Doan Family of Dealerships > (585) 352-6600 ext.1730 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.upstatedigitools.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [NF] Family Racks Up $19,370 Cell Phone Bill > > http://www.wnbc.com/money/17390103/detail.html > > Check your fees before you leave the country on business. > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
