Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by RedSoxPDAer
    Who are the most likley customers to jump on the Treo bandwagon right away? Visorphone owners!
    I disagree.

    Most VisorPhone users will just keep their VPs. I think the most likely new users of the Treo will be enterprise users that have to lug around a PDA and a separate phone, and a pager, and a Blackberry... These enterprise customers will be the target market for Handspring. They have expense accounts, and won't quibble over a few hundred bucks if it saves them time or makes their jobs easier.
    "When I am Empress...Heads will roll!"
    Queen of Parts
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by John Diamant
    No. You've missed the point.
    No, I didn't.
    She *IS* being forced to sign the contract or pay for something she never agreed to in the original contract.
    Did she, or did she not agree to pay a certain minimum service fee for a certain period of time? I have no idea what the particular language was, but there is probably no clause which stipulated that the service provider _had_ to let her pay out the contract in advance (except for the usual $150-200 termination fee probably). Keep in mind that the contract is temporal as well as monetary.
    If she does not, Cingular is charging her a monthly fee for a service she cannot use.
    Sure she can use it if she buys another phone. If you buy a new car and total it, you don't just get to get a new car and continue with the same payment schedule. You have to pay whatever the insurance didn't cover under the terms of the contract.
    Certainly, she was not forced to sign the original two year contract, but Cingular is forcing her to pay a monthly fee for a suspended account or buy a phone which she has neither interest or obligation to buy. Unless the original contract explicitly covered this situation, this is a case of extortion by Cingular (they are requiring her to pay more money than she agreed to in her contract), or at least a breach of the original contract by Cingular.
    Who said the original contract didn't cover it?
    Even if the contract described such a case, it could be thrown out by a judge as being an unreasonable contract term -- yes, this is a real legal principle -- "the standard of reasonableness". RedSoxPDAer's request to "cash out" (e.g. pay) the remaining months on the contract rather than buying a new phone/extending the contract is quite reasonable, and Cingular's forcing her to pay more than she agreed to when she signed the contract is certainly not! If I were RedSoxPDAer's wife, I would dispute it first by contacting Cingular management, and then by external means. Frankly, I suspect they just need to go higher in Cingular management to get this resolved. It's probably simply a case of someone following the rules without thinking through the inappropriateness in this situation.
    I agree, but they never asked her to pay more than the contract specified. At worst they were being unnecessarily pedantic about the terms of it. IOW, they were saying, 'you agreed to keep a service with us for $X a month for Y months, and until the Yth month, we can't let you out of the contract'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by fixitgal
    Most VisorPhone users will just keep their VPs.
    I have to agree with RedSoxPDAer - speaking as one VP owner, the Treo looks like exactly what I wanted in the first place. Add to it the increased RAM and the newer OS, I'm planning on jumping on day 1.
    Jeff
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by Toby
    If you buy a new car and total it, you don't just get to get a new car and continue with the same payment schedule. You have to pay whatever the insurance didn't cover under the terms of the contract.
    Of course. And she wasn't asking for that. She was asking to complete her monetary obligation in the contract and nothing more! While the insurance company has a clear justification in charging more for insuring a new car than an old one, no such justification exists to charge more for a service with no phone than one with a phone. They're not asking to replace the phone at a low price at this point (the equivalent of the car above). In the car insurance case, you also have the choice of not buying a new car and not paying more insurance.

    Originally posted by Toby
    I agree, but they never asked her to pay more than the contract specified. At worst they were being unnecessarily pedantic about the terms of it. IOW, they were saying, 'you agreed to keep a service with us for $X a month for Y months, and until the Yth month, we can't let you out of the contract'.
    Call it pedantic if you like, but the consequence is that they're requiring her to pay more than her legal obligation under the contract, and places them in breach of contract.

    RedSoxPDAer has stated that they were willing to complete the contract (pay for the remaining 3 months of service),
    which is the remaining contractual obligation they had. They're refusing to accept payment under the existing contract terms on a technicality (that they refuse to accept the payment as long as the account is suspended and they refuse to unsuspend the account unless she buys another phone). RedSoxPDAer didn't require that they even accept payment early. They could simply accept the 3 month payments when they're due and let the contract run it's course, but Cingular refuses to do that, and instead charges a suspended account fee -- and pushes the contract months out.

    To make this concrete, the contract would have specified a monthly service at a fixed rate (say $30 per month for illustration) for a specific number of months, which we know to be 24. Therefore, her financial obligation to them would have been
    $720 (plus tax). Other than optional usage charges not covered by the monthly fee (e.g. overage, long distance, etc) which is by choice, not required by contract, $720 plus tax was the sum total of her obligation under the contract. Their refusal to accept the amount stipulated by the contract is at best following an unreasonable contract term that would likely be thrown out in court, or at worst, breach of contract or extortion by Cingular. In practice, if this were taken to court, it would most likely be found that any clause which allowed Cingular to act this way would be unenforceable due to being unreasonable, and Cingular would be forced to allow the customer to pay only the remaining 3 months of the contract. If no explicit clause in the contract justified Cingular's refusal to accept payment for the remaining 3 months of the contract and allow the contract to terminate, this would most likely be found to be an unjustifiable breach of contract by Cingular. Honestly, I believe there was no sinister intent by Cingular, but rather an unintended side effect of a collection of contract terms and policies. I'm confident that a high enough manager in Cingular would allow them to do what they proposed, although it would probably take legal action or publicity to get them to fix their policies and/or contracts to avoid this problem in the future.
    Last edited by John Diamant; 01/22/2002 at 10:09 PM.
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by John Diamant
    Of course. And she wasn't asking for that. She was asking to complete her monetary obligation in the contract and nothing more! While the insurance company has a clear justification in charging more for insuring a new car than an old one, no such justification exists to charge more for a service with no phone than one with a phone. They're not asking to replace the phone at a low price at this point (the equivalent of the car above). In the car insurance case, you also have the choice of not buying a new car and not paying more insurance.
    I wasn't talking about paying more insurance. I was talking about meeting the terms of paying off the original car under the terms of the original contract. Luckily with cars, there are usually terms written into the contract WRT early payouts, though.
    Call it pedantic if you like, but the consequence is that they're requiring her to pay more than her legal obligation under the contract, and places them in breach of contract.
    No, you're ignoring that the original contract specified a _temporal_ requirement as well as a monetary one.
    RedSoxPDAer has stated that they were willing to complete the contract (pay for the remaining 3 months of service),
    which is the remaining contractual obligation they had.
    No, cellular contracts require you to keep the service for a specific length of time also. If you wish to cancel the service before that time length is up, then you have to pay a specific penalty.
    They're refusing to accept payment under the existing contract terms on a technicality (that they refuse to accept the payment as long as the account is suspended and they refuse to unsuspend the account unless she buys another phone). [...]
    Again, the technicality is also temporal. Much like some loans cannot be paid out in advance to avoid interest, and you can't withdraw your money from a 401(K) early without incurring penalties as well as the normal comensurate taxes.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by Toby
    No, you're ignoring that the original contract specified a _temporal_ requirement as well as a monetary one.
    Actually, I'm not and neither did RedSoxPDAer. They were willing to complete both the monetary and temporal requirement -- keep paying for service for the final 3 months. In fact, it's Cingular that refused to accept payment for the final 3 months on a technicality.
    You say they wanted an early termination. RedSoxPDAer didn't say that. While they may have preferred to pay the 3 months in a lump sum to resolve the issue more quickly, that wasn't a requirement, and paying it over a 3 month period to meet the temporal requirement of the contract wasn't the issue under dispute.

    Again, the technicality is also temporal. Much like some loans cannot be paid out in advance to avoid interest, and you can't withdraw your money from a 401(K) early without incurring penalties as well as the normal comensurate taxes.
    These are not valid analogies. In the case of the loan, for instance, the lender has a legal claim to the interest for the duration of the loan period if an early termination penalty is specified. That's the specific reason for an early termination penalty -- to keep them from being out money they're specifically entitled to under the terms of that contract. The 401(K) is a very different case, as the penalties are stipulated by law, not contract, so I'll skip it to avoid confusion. Comparing, however, to the loan case, the key difference is that Cingular has no right to any fees beyond the monthly service fee. There is no obligation to use your mobile phone and incur additional usage charges just because you have the service.

    Again, to be very concrete about this, RedSoxPDAer's wife could certainly have met her legal obligation under the contract if she obtained another phone which was used to unsuspend the account, put the phone in a box (not using it once), paid her monthly fees for 3 months, and cancelled service. She's under no contractual obligation to purchase more than the original phone from Cingular, so requiring her to replace a lost or stolen phone is a breach of contract on Cingular's part. This shows how silly it is to require her to have a phone. In fact, she could borrow someone else's phone (probably needs to be for a different carrier so they don't think she stole the phone), move her new SIM into that phone, have them reactivate the phone, take the SIM out, and give the phone back to the original owner and pay her 3 months. So, requiring the phone is silly. They might require her to purchase a new SIM, but even that borders on the ridiculous in this particular case.

    Bottom line: Cingular requires a 24 month obligation. RedSoxPDAer is willing to meet that requirement. Cingular refuses to accept payment on a technicality and keeps upping the charges monthly. That's breach of contract, extortion or an uneforceable contract. Take your pick. I'm sure a court would pick one of those 3.
    Last edited by John Diamant; 01/24/2002 at 02:07 AM.
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by John Diamant
    [...] Bottom line: Cingular requires a 24 month obligation. RedSoxPDAer is willing to meet that requirement. Cingular refuses to accept payment on a technicality and keeps upping the charges monthly. That's breach of contract, extortion or an uneforceable contract. Take your pick. I'm sure a court would pick one of those 3.
    No, actually, without a copy of the contract, the bottom line is that you can't make that call. I'm sure if what happened was really Cingular's policy it's written into the language of the contract. Further bottom line: if you think you've got a case, threaten to take them to court.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #48  
    John, back to the beginning of this thread. I agree and think it is in HS best interest to make a path for existing customers (Visorphone). A contract extention is a good solution, not a trade in program. They don't want visorphones back.

    As far as visorphone users as potential customers..... I for one will be. I think that visorphone users that like/use the product, some will be interested in more memory, smaller etc. Every since I went to visorphone, it it the only module I use now anyway and hate to take it out.

    About your contract deal... too much challenge with this. I would recommend get a used 5160 on eBay...fulfill your contract for 3 months, then decide if you want to dump them.

    Good Luck
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by Toby
    No, actually, without a copy of the contract, the bottom line is that you can't make that call. I'm sure if what happened was really Cingular's policy it's written into the language of the contract. Further bottom line: if you think you've got a case, threaten to take them to court.
    Incidentally, for anyone who takes my comments to mean that I think RedSoxPDAer or his wife are in the wrong, this is not the case. I'm simply looking at things from the standpoint of current legal trends in business. For an interesting look at contracts, consumer choice, and such, here's an article:
    ========================================================
    CARLTON VOGT "Ethics Matters" InfoWorld.com
    ========================================================

    Friday, January 25, 2002


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    MEANINGLESS CHOICE IS NO CHOICE

    Posted Jan 23, 2002 10:51 Pacific Time


    I'm a firm believer in being able to make the important decisions in my life, free from interference, whether from the government, corporations, or just plain busybodies. But choice, like most other things, can be more illusion than reality.

    When the government tried to make some sense of a basically unfair health care system nearly a decade ago, the rallying cry of the fear-mongers in the insurance industry lobby was that people "wouldn't be able to choose" their own doctors. In a sense, they were right. People who had a cozy relationship with a trusted old doctor might find that they had to go to someone else.

    On the other hand, people who don't have such a relationship, which includes most people, often find that their ability to choose is a mockery. People move frequently and often find themselves in a place with few friends and no knowledge of the local doctors. They are "free" to choose -- as long as you count the "stick the pin in the phone book" method as a way of choosing. Most have neither the time nor resources to investigate, research, and interview the hundreds of doctors available to them. How much easier it would be to have someone to pre-screen and qualify the doctors, as many managed care plans do.

    Most of us are faced with the daunting task of having to choose a long-distance company. With scores of "choices" in both companies and pricing plans, it could take weeks with a spreadsheet and a pack of tarot cards to make a real decision. Again, my suspicion is that most people simply wither under the weight of so many choices and just take a stab at it. The kicker comes when the company you've chosen decides to change its rate plan within months of your signing on. You could change then, but you'd have to start the process all over again.

    But phone service isn't the only area where excess choice causes some people to shut down and avoid making a truly informed decision. Do you know what it says in your bank's terms of service agreement? (My own bank's runs 6,000 words of legal gobbledygook.) If you have online banking, you've agreed to it by clicking on the "Agree" button to continue signing on. If you're like me, you just agreed and went on with your life. Even if you bank offline, by simply using the service, you automatically agree to the terms. I doubt if many people get the terms from several banks and spend a lot of time comparing them.

    But should you or I get into a dispute with the bank, the bank's lawyers will argue that we read and agreed to the terms of service -- which can change daily, by the way -- and chose the bank "freely" on the basis of those terms. Did you really?

    Credit cards provide another area in which too many choices provide no real choice at all. There are hundreds of cards, all with different rates, annual fees, terms of service, and inducements for you to sign up. Who really sits down and makes the comparison? Or do you just take the one that offers you frequent flier miles, despite the fact another card might be a better bargain in the long run -- even taking the free miles into account?

    I was recently informed by the bank that provides my most-used card that the next time I placed a charge on the account, I would forever sign away one of my most important rights under the Constitution -- the right to seek redress of my grievances through the courts. Instead I had to agree to be mediated by some group unknown to me, but which I suspect would not be very pro-consumer. If it were, the bank would be running in the opposite direction, instead of embracing it.

    Again, I was presented with a choice that was none at all. What choice did I have? I could have dropped the card -- only to find, I'm sure, that all its analogs were either on board with that scheme or seriously considering it. I could do without a credit or debit card, but just try living a normal life without one -- especially if you travel or want to shop online. Again, a theoretical choice, but no real one.

    Shopping online has its own drawbacks. If you decide to shop, most online operations will quote you wonderful privacy policies and will display them proudly on their site. Many are fatally tainted by exceptions and doublespeak. The worst exception of all is that they reserve the right to change the terms of the policy at will -- and without offering you the opportunity to remove your personal data from their systems when they do.

    Theoretically you have the choice to read the policy and decide whether to do business with the site. But if they are free to change their policy, and you're not free to withdraw your personal data, you have no choice at all.

    Deregulation came in two decades ago on a promise of giving consumers more choices. Instead, it has given us airlines that care more about profits than security, rolling blackouts and extortionate utility rates in California, and banks with policies and pricing that range from confusing to predatory. Meanwhile, consumers find themselves adrift in a sea of so-called choices with no land in sight.

    Most of us are faced with too many areas in which we must choose -- and too many options available in each area. To decide among them in an informed way is virtually impossible. Although some of us may doggedly research one or two areas that interest us greatly, that would leave precious little time to do justice to the others.

    For a choice to be worthwhile, it must be meaningful. At the very least, that means there need to be acceptable alternatives and some way for the person making the choice to reasonably understand the options. Without that, there is no choice at all.

    If you choose, you can visit our Ethics Matters forum at http://www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics or write to me at ethics_matters@infoworld.com.



    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    MORE ETHICS MATTERS
    For a complete archive of his InfoWorld columns visit
    http://www2.infoworld.com/cgi/compon...?column=ethics

    [...]

    Copyright 2002 InfoWorld Media Group Inc.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #50  
    I think all of you will be surprised with what Handspring has in store for Visor Phone customers! Be exceited! Get your credit cards ready!
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by comcom
    I think all of you will be surprised with what Handspring has in store for Visor Phone customers! Be exceited! Get your credit cards ready!
    YEA YEA I got the e-mail offer for $399 but no info till Monday.
    LARRY

    GOD BLESS AMERICA
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by whiteytech
    YEA YEA I got the e-mail offer for $399 but no info till Monday.
    Whoa, whoa, hold up. Can you post the email? "No info till Monday" means that there will be info on Monday! Please post, then we can rumon-mong about whether or not Monday is the actual US Release!
  13. #53  
    I have a hunch that the Treo will be launched this Monday! It's about time we get a chance to get our hands on this little beauty, don't you agree?
  14. #54  
    This was in my e-mail box from HSpring this morning. A link in it took you to the HS site, but said to come back Monday, that they were a little quick in sending out the e-mail.

    For one, I don't see this as much of an incentive to trade up. I was expecting more.
    -----------
    You thought the VisorPhone was cool. But you think the Treo communicator is even cooler. And you want one. Hey, we know how you feel. That's why we've created a special program for our loyal customers who purchased a VisorPhone before February 9, 2002. For three weeks only, you can keep your current phone number and purchase the Treo 180 communicator for only $399—without having to sign-up for a new 1-year service contract. That's a $150 savings off the normal $549 price of Treo without service activation. Plus, you get to keep your VisorPhone, too!

    Orders without service activation are expected to ship within one to two weeks. When your new Treo arrives, transfer the SIM card from your VisorPhone to your Treo and you'll be ready to make calls. Then transfer the data from your Visor handheld to your Treo communicator with a HotSync® operation and you'll be all set to go! But you must act fast—this offer is good for three weeks only!
  15. #55  
    MeThink Treo will be finally out on Monday. Already got my credit card in hand .


    Originally posted by dietrichbohn

    Whoa, whoa, hold up. Can you post the email? "No info till Monday" means that there will be info on Monday! Please post, then we can rumon-mong about whether or not Monday is the actual US Release!
  16. #56  
    Can someone post the original link as well?

    I'm concerned that what launches on Monday may only be for those serviced by Cingular Wireless. I'm a VisorPhone owner with Voicestream service, and I didn't get any email from handspring recently like the one discussed here. It would be severely disappointing if VoiceStream users got dumped on (again).



    Originally posted by pbryon
    This was in my e-mail box from HSpring this morning. A link in it took you to the HS site, but said to come back Monday, that they were a little quick in sending out the e-mail.

    For one, I don't see this as much of an incentive to trade up. I was expecting more.
  17. #57  
    First I don't think its just for CINGULAR. If you get the HS E-NEWS letter you got the e-mail.

    Everbody should get the offer. Have you reg your HS units.Sign up for the FREE e-news mail letters.
    LARRY

    GOD BLESS AMERICA
  18. #58  
    Originally posted by whiteytech
    First I don't think its just for CINGULAR. If you get the HS E-NEWS letter you got the e-mail.

    Everbody should get the offer. Have you reg your HS units.Sign up for the FREE e-news mail letters.
    So far as I know, I'm signed up for the letter--I didn't receive it. Could somebody please publicly post the email in its entirety?
  19. #59  
    Actually, I have registered, and I do get the email newsletters. The last email newsletter I received was on the 4th, and it was all about the price cut for the eyemodule2. That's the reason i was speculating that this was for cingular only, since I ALWAYS get handspring spam email, and didn't get this particular message.



    Originally posted by whiteytech
    First I don't think its just for CINGULAR. If you get the HS E-NEWS letter you got the e-mail.

    Everbody should get the offer. Have you reg your HS units.Sign up for the FREE e-news mail letters.
  20. #60  
    If anyone wants the HS e-mail just drop my a request @ lewhite@sccoast.net
    I'll be happy to pass it on. Get the request in by 6:00 AM 2-11-02.
    LARRY

    GOD BLESS AMERICA
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions