andersonr@ncar.ucar.edu> (05/31/91)
I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary carrier. I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20. The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI. My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally expect to not be switched over to MCI?? I realize they will probably switch you over regardless of what you do, but by crossing out the endorsement message, haven't you taken away the "ok" for them to switch you over? Rick Anderson AG Communication Systems ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!andersonr ...!att!gtephx!andersonr ...!uunet!zardoz!hrc!gtephx!andersonr [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as payment for your having given permission to change your phones. When you withheld your permission, you had no right to the money. And please, no one needs to reply saying 'you have the right to keep things of value which arrive in the mail unsolicited'. This was not 'something of value'. It was a contract they were requesting you to sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so. Big difference. PAT]
Doctor Math <drmath@viking.uucp> (06/02/91)
asuvax!gtephx!andersonr@ncar.ucar.edu (Rick Anderson) writes: > I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby > they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary > carrier. I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20. > The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if > I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI. > My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this > endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally > expect to not be switched over to MCI?? > [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement > you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as > payment for your having given permission to change your phones. . . .] What if your BOC requires carrier changes in writing from YOU, the customer? [Moderator's Note: If your teleco requires written notices of changes, then MCI would comply by sending them the endorsement you signed on the chedk. That would serve as the written notice. PAT]
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (06/03/91)
Rick Anderson <asuvax!gtephx!andersonr@ncar.ucar.edu> writes: > My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this > endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally > expect to not be switched over to MCI?? If you want to be extra sleazy (and let your conscience be your guide), the following scam will work and will not cost you any money. It assumes existing service with PacBell and AT&T (mileage with other providers may vary ...) First, notify PacBell that you suspect that MCI is about to slam your service. A note will go into your records that you made the call and the normal charges to switch the account (in case the "slamming" occurs) will be waived. Then call AT&T and tell them the same thing. AT&T will for some fixed period repeatedly place PIC orders, changing your service back to AT&T. If it already is AT&T, the order is ignored. If not (and is MCI), your PIC will be switched back to AT&T. You will not be charged by PacBell because of the previous call the that business office. How do I know this will work? Recently, I had some dealings with a reseller who I expected to pull just such a trick (change my PIC). I called PacBell, who said that while nothing could be done to stop such an order, a note could be made in my records to allow the switches of the PIC without charge. At the same time, AT&T offered to repeatedly put through PIC change orders to specify AT&T. I was told to check for PIC and if I found that it was changed to call AT&T or PacBell immediately. > I realize they will probably switch you over regardless of what you > do, but by crossing out the endorsement message, haven't you taken > away the "ok" for them to switch you over? Remember, there is nothing to stop you from switching back, unless the "contract" states that acceptance of the money requires you to languish with MCI for some period of time. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
res@cis.ohio-state.edu> (06/03/91)
> [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement > you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as > payment for your having given permission to change your phones. When > you withheld your permission, you had no right to the money. And > please, no one needs to reply saying 'you have the right to keep > things of value which arrive in the mail unsolicited'. This was not > 'something of value'. It was a contract they were requesting you to > sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so. Big difference. PAT] Pat, Put the shoe on the other foot: Suppose I wrote on the back of a check to MCI, in payment of a regular monthly bill: "By depositing this check, MCI agrees, for the value received, to provide the issuer of said check with phone service for the rest of his natural life, with no additional charges to be incurred." Are you really saying that if MCI should happen to not catch this and cashes the check, that they have entered into this contract? And if they do catch it, cross out the verbage and deposit the check anyway, are they guilty of some heinous crime? Then, what makes you or I different from MCI? I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. I have tried very diligently to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer, incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far from a clearly defined point of contract law. I may morally agree with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in a court of law. Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh
Robert.Savery@uunet.uu.net> (06/04/91)
In a message of <30 May 91 20:26:50>, Rick Anderson writes: > I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby > they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary > carrier. I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20. > The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if > I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI. > My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this > endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally > expect to not be switched over to MCI?? Legally I don't know. But since everyone agrees that "getting it in writing" is the best way to kill slamming, and MCI'll have it in ink, you should be switched. I'd go ahead and cash the check. Then, after you're switched to MCI, call the Telco and switch back to your carrier of choice. If your Telco charges the same as US West in Omaha does ( $5.00 per switch), you'll make a $10.00 profit. Or, since the Telco is so used to slamming calls, you can call and claim you didn't order the switch. Chances are you'll get full credit. But I didn't suggest that! ;-) Then again, since I have my account flagged to never ever be switched with out my going down to the office, I just might make $20. Now, if MCI'll just send me the promo! Bob msged 1.99S ZTC [200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. [Moderator's Note: He could *claim* he did not order the switch, but his signature on the check would be produced by MCI to demonstrate he certainly knew something was going to happen. PAT]
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Mike Riddle) (06/04/91)
In <telecom11.420.2@eecs.nwu.edu> colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu (Rob Stampfli) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement >> you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as >> payment for your having given permission to change your phones. >> [deleted] >> It was a contract they were requesting you to >> sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so. Big difference. PAT] > I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. I have tried very diligently > to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer, > incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far > from a clearly defined point of contract law. I may morally agree > with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in > a court of law. Well, I'm a law school graduate but not yet admitted to any state bar, so I guess this is just going to be over-educated ramblings, but here's my two cents worth. The issue of endorsements on the back of checks is subject to the Uniform Commercial Code and is, as the last poster suggested, not entirely clear. "It Depends" is the best answer one can give, separate from the specific facts in a case. When I received the MCI offer recently, the qualification was also on the front of the check and an enclosed letter clearly explained the offer. I don't know, of course, if this format was followed anywhere else, but in my semi-professional opinion, if /I/ had endorsed the check, I would have been accepting their offer to switch. Which I didn't, for reasons which will remain my own. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis
Guy R Berentsen <guy@ihlpf.att.com> (06/06/91)
1.) The version I recieved was pushing a service package with a monthly fee, so even If I switched back I would be liable for all or part of the monthly fee. 2.) Some of the fine print said that I would have to pay the BOC fee to switch. 3.) After the part of the agreement that said I would selecting MCI as my primary long distance carrier by signing the check, there was more fine print that said If I select more than one carrier none of my selections would be considered valid. To me this sounds like one could cash the check, but invalidate the selection wihtout technically violating the agreement. Of course, that would certainly violate the spirit of the agreement, and could cost more than $20 if you have to pay several switch over fees.
ts@cup.portal.com (06/06/91)
Let me see if I understand this offer from MCI. If I am willing to prefix all my long distance calls with 10288, I can stay with AT&T but get a free $20 from MCI? Is this right? Sounds like a pretty darn good deal to me! Tim Smith
IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (06/09/91)
In Telecom Digest V. 11 # Rob Stampfli <colnet!res@cis.ohio-state.edu> says: > I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. I have tried very diligently > to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer, > incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far > from a clearly defined point of contract law. I may morally agree > with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in > a court of law. I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER ... But that doesn't stop me from shooting my keyboard off..... While a mere undergraduate at the fine institution that hosts this excellent forum, I took a course in Business Law (so named). In that course, I was instructed, and confirmed in the tome of all such great knowledge (The textbook by Weast), that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code: In cases where the payment of a bill or other such compensation for a contract is IN DISPUTE, one can indicate on the check, (or include a statement attached to some other item of value so designated), something to the effect that the check, (or item) is payment for all debts, past and present. If the party owed payment accepts the check or item (a pen was given as example), then its over, they got paid, and that's that. Note the two sections in all caps. I'm not a lawyer, I took that course ten years ago, and the part about dispute is the key. If there was no legitimate dispute due to variations in the terms of the contract, then you're gonna look mighty foolish in court trying to use a cheap device to wheedle out of the deal. That I think gets at the heart of the matter. Advice on the clock: Don't try this with commercial contracts, Holmes, unless you really know what you're doing. I would guess that with the MCI slam check, a judge may attempt to simply reach the status quo, i.e., they give you control of your phone service back, and you give them their $20 back. Andy Jacobson<izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet> [Moderator's Note: As you noted, 'satisfaction amd accord' is a very tricky area. Without some legitimate written correspondence outlining your DISPUTE, and something from the other side indicating a willingness to accept partial payment as full satisfaction, the court is quite likely to rule that you unjustly enriched yourself at the expense of MCI. Remember also that when remittances go to a lockbox, the courts have said more than once that a minimum-wage employee for the bank processing hundreds of checks daily as agent for the bank's customers cannot bind the bank's customer to any agreement. A lawyer here in Chicago tried that stunt with Diner's Club: he owed them a thousand dollars on his bill, and sent them ten dollars marked 'payment in full'. It went through the lockbox, and later on, Diner's tried to collect the balance, eventually placing him with an agency when he kept resisting further payment. Finally, Diner's returned his ten dollars and sued him for the full amount. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee found out and the guy damn near lost his license to practice law here. The ARDC told him, "you are an attorney and you know better than that ... you don't stiff your creditors and abuse some eighteen-year old kid working for Diner's lockbox remittance processing center." ARDC complaints about judges and attornies here go directly to the Supreme Court for administrative review, and the court accepted the ARDC ruling completely, especially since the guy was an attorney. PAT]