Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Why should he go to the media.
I'm on board with the folks that say, "Too bad, you moved, and you're the one causing the problem with service, not them. Pay up".
Let's say I signed a lease on a car, and then 6 months later decided to move to Australia.
Would I get the "Go to the media" reactions if I came on here complaining that the car company is holding me to my contract, of making me find someone else to make the payments? Probably not.
It's not contract extortion, it's contract ENFORCEMENT.
|
As someone else already pointed out that example is ridiculous. And your Echo/F-150 example is equally ridiculous.
The issue here is whether or not the contract has any terms that absolve the consumer in the case of the service becoming inoperable. If it is represented that the service you are currently paying for would be effective at your new location and this isn't the case they are in breach. If the clause reads that such a case will not be considered breach but will instead require the consumer to upgrade to a suitable service for the location the consumer would be in breach if they fail to pay. I suspect the latter is the case. Even so, if the terms of upgrade are deemed overreaching (doubtful) they could be severed from the contract.
The basis behind going to the media is that it likely presents the best means of convincing the company to simply let you walk away. Or are you one of the people on here who sees some moral offence in not paying speeding tickets etc.? They might just decide to avoid any potential hassles and allow both parties to call it quits.
Nothing can be said with any degree of certainty without having any familiarity with the actual agreement, but I don't know if there's much of a legal argument here. I'm not even sure the media would see it as overly oppressive, but it is a card in your hand.