Quote:
Originally Posted by Boblobla
Not the same thing at all.
If he was told that his car would be good in Australia, then he moves there and finds out it doesn't work at all and he has to pay double for a crappier vehicle that he doesn't need we would have a similar situation.
|
Okay, fine here is an example.
He leases a Toyota Echo in the city.
Then 6 months later he moves out to the country where there are only dirt roads and the Echo gets stuck a lot.
Now he goes to Toyota and tells them he wants them to take back the car so he can go lease a Ford F-150, and they say, no, but we'll let you trade it back in on this Tundra.
The point is, that it is HIS circumstances that have changed and made it necessary for him to alter or dissolve the contract, and he should be held to his end of it, wich in this case means paying it out. They're giving him an option to get out of that contract for free if he pays for an upgraded service. Sure it's not as good as he can get elsewhere, but they aren't obligated to do that, and even though it is in their best interest to have him do it, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are going beyond the scope of the original contract to fix a problem created by him, instead of just telling him to pay up and pack sand.
Yeah, he's in a crappy spot, but to b fair, it is a spot of his own making. Why is that extortion? Why is this matter for the media?
This of course is all contingent on whether or not the company stated that they could provide service at the new location.
If the OP just assumed they could then my point is valid. If they stated it in writing, then he should just go see them and show them that part of the deal.
So Rathji,
Did they tell you they could provide service at the new place?
Did you get it in writing?
Or did you just assume it would work there?
Becasue those are some pretty important points regarding how/if you can get this sorted out.