Contract Extortion? Need some advice.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

Nice touch with the bold caps lock thing.

Sometimes you need a lot more emphasis.

[Boblobla]

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.

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.

[LChoy]

Hmm....I just re-read the OP's post
Did they just verbally tell you that there was service for this in the city, or was there some type of document that you signed when you moved to the city that said there was? I originally was on your side, but BBS has a point. The company isn't forcing you per say to get the upgrade. You might just have to cancel the contract or try getting someone to take over your contract.

EDIT: Better example would be getting a mobile account with Vodaphone in Europe and moving back to Canada. You were told that Vodaphone services Alberta. However, you later find out that they only service Edmonton or something...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

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.

[ken0042]

Yep, for me this all hinges on if they told him that his current service would work in Calgary, and what the contract says.

If they are doing the best they can to try to accomidate a customer who tries to change a term of the contract (ie- the service address) and are unable to; then they did their best.

Keep in mind what telecommunications contracts usually represent. It's subsidized hardware in exchange for you having service with them. You already saved money by not having to buy the original hardware up front. I'd pay the $400; especially seeing as it may be tax deductable as a moving expense.

[Boblobla]

I kind of agree. It will all depend on what xplornet told him when he moved and/or what he can prove they promised him. I do agree the best method is to pay them off and be done with them.

I also may be biased as I have had some dealings with xplorenet on behalf of my parents since they are not very tech savvy... They are a terrible company that suckers rural people into incredibly inflated long term contracts. Bell, Telus and Dell have been a pleasure to deal with compared to these d-bags.

[ken0042]

Just talked to a girl at my work who uses Xplornet- she thought she had the cheapest package at around $47 per month. So if you are trying to get out of it check with your old neighbours; maybe one of them would be very happy to take over your contract for that price.

[valo403]

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.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by valo403

Or are you one of the people on here who sees some moral offence in not paying speeding tickets etc.?

As a tax paying citizen of the province who also drives an automobile and also on occasion chooses to walk instead of drive, I do take offence with people who dont pay their (Alberta) speeding tickets.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by valo403

And your Echo/F-150 example is equally ridiculous.

I thought that was a great example. Customer makes a change in their life that makes the original hardware not suitable; leaving options of upgrading the hardware or breaking the terms of the agreement.

But as you said, we need to know more details to be sure either way.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I thought that was a great example. Customer makes a change in their life that makes the original hardware not suitable; leaving options of upgrading the hardware or breaking the terms of the agreement.

But as you said, we need to know more details to be sure either way.

Not suitable and inoperable are different things. An echo may be less than ideal for country roads, but it's still functional.

[ken0042]

Ok, let's say he moves to California and the car doesn't meet emissions? Or he moves to an island and needs a boat to get around instead of an automobile?

At the end of the day, it's not an action by the ISP that caused this, it's the action of the OP.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

EDIT: Better example would be getting a mobile account with Vodaphone in Europe and moving back to Canada. You were told that Vodaphone services Alberta. However, you later find out that they only service Edmonton or something...

Is this example better than the car one?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not suitable and inoperable are different things. An echo may be less than ideal for country roads, but it's still functional.

Fine, he's moving somewhere where they only sell diesel, so he's got to buy a diesel vehical. Does that work, because really the details are irrelevant, so argue them all you want, as the validity of the details in my example are independant of my point. But if you want to keep plaing the "Hey i found something wrong with a secondary part of your post, so the whole thing must be wrong" game, by all means, go ahead and point out that Toyota doesn't make a diesel Tundra.

The example is to illustrate that the change in situation is due to the OP, not the company who is trying to enforce the contract.

As i've said before if the original contract says they'd provide him with service if he moved then he has a point. If it doesn't then it's his own fault.

Hell, even if before he moved they said, "Yup, sure we can give you service there" and they can't, it's irrelevant as he/they are still bound by the original contract, which if it has no provisions for moving, probably means he is stuck having to pay it out.

I'd be willing to bet that the original contract has no provision for moving, and when Rathji tried to move he asked what his options were and they said if it works, he could just use it wherever he moved to. Low and behold it doesn't work there, so they go back to the original contract which says he has to pay it out if he doesn't want it anymore, at which point they give him the option to upgrade.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Fine, he's moving somewhere where they only sell diesel, so he's got to buy a diesel vehical. Does that work, because really the details are irrelevant, so argue them all you want, as the validity of the details in my example are independant of my point.

The example is to illustrate that the change in situation is due to the OP, not the company who is trying to enforce the contract.

As i've said before if the original contract says they'd provide him with service if he moved then he has a point. If it doesn't then it's his own fault.

Hell, even if before he moved they said, "Yup, sure we can give you service there" and they can't, it's irrelevant as he/they are still bound by the original contract, which if it has no provisions for moving, probably means he is stuck having to pay it out.

I don't think it was ever a mystery that the change in situation was due to the OP, that's pretty obvious. The issue is whether or not the OP has a continuing obligation to pay if that change in circumstances has rendered the contracted services valueless.

If before he moved the company said that they can provide services at the new location it certainly is relevant. The fact that the original contract says A doesn't mean that affirmative acts by the company can't make it subsequently be read to say B. It's not an easy argument without corroborating evidence, but those statements wouldn't be irrelevant.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As a tax paying citizen of the province who also drives an automobile and also on occasion chooses to walk instead of drive, I do take offence with people who dont pay their (Alberta) speeding tickets.

I should clarify. I'm referring to the apparently ongoing debate on here about the morality of fighting a ticket that you know you are guilty on, not just ignoring tickets period.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think it was ever a mystery that the change in situation was due to the OP, that's pretty obvious. The issue is whether or not the OP has a continuing obligation to pay if that change in circumstances has rendered the contracted services valueless.

If before he moved the company said that they can provide services at the new location it certainly is relevant. The fact that the original contract says A doesn't mean that affirmative acts by the company can't make it subsequently be read to say B. It's not an easy argument without corroborating evidence, but those statements wouldn't be irrelevant.

If they guaranteed it would work, I agree. But I'd be willing to bet it's a "best efforts" sort of arrangement, and it didn't work out, so they go back to the original contract.

Either way, I hate it when peole start threads asking for advice, it sparks some debate that could easily be cleared up if the OP just posted a few details, but they don't so it goes on and on.

Jeeze Rathji, care to clear this up?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by T@T

Personally I would tell them to take a hike and I'll see you in court, any judge in the land knows that people have to move sometimes. You did your part telling them you'll keep their service but "it just doesn't work"

I highly doubt they would bother suing you over $400.00 and make sure you tell them if they flag your credit bureau you'll sue them.

Yeah, tell them to stick it. You are trying to be reasonable, they are not, and don't deserve more of your money.

And really, even if they do go after your credit rating, its one 2-bit ISP. It's hardly like you are in default on your mortgage

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by valo403

I should clarify. I'm referring to the apparently ongoing debate on here about the morality of fighting a ticket that you know you are guilty on, not just ignoring tickets period.

Oh. I was unaware such a debate was occuring.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Oh. I was unaware such a debate was occuring.

Maybe it's just occurring in my head. I seriously need to stop mixing those prescriptions.