ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (12/14/90)
Paul.Schleck@iugate.unomaha.edu (Paul Schleck) writes: > A friend of mine called the 1-800 number to inquire about personal 1-800 > service. At the end of the call, she clearly stated that she did NOT > want to sign up for the service. A few days later, she tried to place an > operator-assisted call and got an MCI operator. Further inquiries and > calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched > from AT&T to MCI! The charges were about the same per call, so she > didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back. No, no, no! The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant. These are ill-gotten gains. I cannot speak to the legalities, however, when I was slammed some years ago from AT&T to Sprint, I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL. I suspect that if one bellows long enough one can get the calls written off. In my case, I refused to even begin dealing with a service rep. Slamming me was a grevious wrong committed against me by Sprint. As such, I insisted in dealing with a management person. Keep going up the ladder until you are satisfied. Perhaps if everyone insisted on free service after slamming, the practice would stop. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon:ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance carrier of choice, did they not? PAT]
jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (12/15/90)
ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper): > No, no, no! The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant. > These are ill-gotten gains. [...] > I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL. > [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming > carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount > you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust > enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you > place. This is required by tariff. ... PAT] Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? Theft of long distance business from one carrier by another? (In this case, theft of AT&T business by Sprint?) It seems to me that if anyone has a complaint here, it is AT&T -- they are the ones who lost business through what I would consider misrepresentation, if not outright fraud. (Anyway, why should I sue Sprint? AT&T has more lawyers that I do. :-) ) While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance service, it isn't Sprint. If this were my problem, I would be willing to pay AT&T (at AT&T rates) for the long distance service consumed, since that is what I originally expected to pay, but I would certainly resist paying Sprint one red cent. John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (12/17/90)
(Moderator says unjust enrichment if you fail to pay what you anticipated paying for the calls.) I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with this. I'd much rather agree with Ed's statement of not paying for calls at all, but... For example, if I have AT&Ts ROA program, and am paying $8.50/hr., then MCI slams me, and I place two hours of calls at their rates (say it comes out to $9.00/hr,) I believe that the individual should only have to pay the cost that s/he would have incurred under their existing carrier. The difference, if any, should be eaten by the slamming company. In my example, MCI would only get $8.50/hr from me, and they would have to eat the difference (one dollar). Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST [Moderator's Note: This has been the point I've been trying to make all along. You cannot profit from the mistakes and/or crimes of someone else. As in your hospital example, if the switch was in error and accidental, then you still owe for services rendered if you benefitted from them. If the switch was done fraudulently, then you need to deal with the fraud as a separate issue. Of course every carrier and every telco is going to claim it was a clerical error, and I have no reason to doubt the telcos, since what does it profit them either way? What ahout those folks who call 700-555-4141 and know for a fact that their service was changed, so they run up a big bill on purpose and then later claim the switch was unauthorized? When you find out about a fraud or some other crime committed or in progress, you have some obligation to stop it or notify others who can stop it, but you cannot go along for a free ride. Isn't the real solution and the ethical way to pay *what you expected to pay* and at the same time continually confront the regulators to obtain relief from this problem in the future? PAT]
ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (12/17/90)
Understand that I do not advocate blithely failing to pay the bill. Rather, to contact a management person at the offending carrier and demand that the calls be written off as compensation for the wrong of improperly assigning the line to the carrier. Hence the reason that I advocate *IMMEDIATELY* dealing with a management person who has the authority to negotiate compensation. Should such negotiations fail, I would explore the disputed charges options available under local PUC rules and finally court action. Admittedly, in my own case, I had the additional lever of being an AT&T employee. I could accurately claim that I anticipated paying nothing due to AT&T management benefits. This arguement, plus possibly some sense of "professional courtesy" undoubtedly motivated Sprint to write off the calls. However, I believe that any slammee is entitled to this form of compensation. One should, at least, attempt to receive it. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com coming soon: ehopper@ncr.att.com ????!!!!! :-) [Moderator's Note: I left Ed's cute pseudo address attached again this time for one reason: As a plug for the final message in this issue dealing with 'The Wrong Choice'. PAT]
mingo@uunet.uu.net (Charles Hawkins Mingo) (12/18/90)
In article <@accuvax.nwu.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G. Dobnick) writes: >ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper): >> These are ill-gotten gains. [...] >> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming >> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount >> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust >> enrichment to yourself. PAT] >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. (No property right --> no theft.) >While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance >service, it isn't Sprint. At least you agree you shouldn't get service for free! There is a well-established contracts doctrine, known as quantum meruit, covering exchanges of services in the absence of a contract. For example, if a doctor renders aid to an unconscious person, the beneficiary of the aid must pay for the reasonable value of the services received. Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y for her services. Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who did the work. Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (12/18/90)
In article <15458@accuvax.nwu.edu> well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: > >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? > Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone company. Peter da Silva +1 713 274 5180 peter@ferranti.com
ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (12/19/90)
I promise, this is my last post on this! well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: > services received. Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged > to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital > oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y > for her services. Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y > would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who > did the work. I would only point out one thing, if there had been a continuing pattern of "Doctor slamming" at that hospital, and the same doctor continued to receive the benefits of these little accidents, you might view the situation differently. There has been a pattern of fraud in relation to slamming and *THAT* is a highly relevant factor in my position. Also, remember that I pointed out that one should demand an adjustment from the slamming carrier as compensation for being slammed. I think they DO owe you something for your trouble. In my case, it was poorer quality (even with those MAGIC fibers!) and the inability to reach Disneyland East (Basking Ridge) on the phone. True, there is a potential for abuse, but that's the risk that carriers run when they don't get written documentation. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com
res@cblpe.att.com (Robert E Stampfli) (12/19/90)
> Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged > to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital > oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y > for her services. If Surgeon Y charged twice the fee that you had previously arranged with X, I would not think you liable for the difference (though perhaps the hospital might be). Furthermore, if there was substantial evidence that Surgeon Y had instigated the "oversight" for her own pecuniary interests, I would think this would not only represent an ample reason to refuse said payment, but would constitute an excellent reason to pursue other legal remedies against her. Rob Stampfli att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home) [Moderator's Note: If this last group of messages on slamming did not leave you as thoroughly confused on the subject of slamming as I am, then nothing printed here will do so. PAT]
rick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rick Ace) (12/21/90)
> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming > carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount > you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust > enrichment to yourself. Does this mean one would have to haul out the tariffs and calculate by hand what the bill would have been with the correct long distance company? That's quite a bit of work for Joe Customer. Someone else screwed up and that someone else should do the work. I wouldn't pay the part that is in dispute until the problem was resolved to my satisfaction. > Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you > place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue > the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. > After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance > carrier of choice, did they not? PAT] You forgot the :-). Didn't you? No? You can't be serious about suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit of such little importance. Rick Ace ucbvax!pixar!rick
mingo@uunet.uu.net (12/21/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes: >> >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft? >> Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you. >Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone >company. The contract you have with AT&T governs *how* you will pay for service *if* you place LD calls using AT&T. You never agree to place *all* your calls with AT&T. In fact, you don't even have an operative contract *until* you place a call. (Why? In order to have a contract, each side must, at the very least, promise to do something specific. Since you haven't promised to make any specific level of calls (or indeed any calls at all) you have no performance obligation WRT AT&T. And if you don't have any obligation WRT them, they don't WRT you -- this is known as mutuality of obligation.) I don't think you want to claim that consumers shouldn't have the *right* to switch carriers (which they wouldn't, if AT&T "owned" the right to their business). You're upset because some incompetent or evil third- party has usurped the consumer's right to choose. But from AT&T point of view, it matters little whether the decision to switch originated with the consumer or someone else. Charlie Mingo mingo@cup.portal.com mingo@well.sf.ca.us
JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet (12/23/90)
>> Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you >> place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue >> the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service. >> After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance >> carrier of choice, did they not? PAT] >You forgot the :-). Didn't you? No? You can't be serious about >suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit >of such little importance. The other problems with a suit is the amounts are rather trivial, suitable mostly for small claims court (are regulated operations immune from suits in that venue ?) where you generally can get compensation only for actual losses plus costs (usually minimal - your lost time in resolving and correcting the matter, mostly). In this case, the financially most agrieved 'person' is the carrier who was removed from your 1+ service. They would be the most likely one to sue but of course that's unlikely since they all participate in the borderline marketing activities to one degree or another. They would *all* get tarred by the discovery process and publicity if it were taken to court. Therefore, the most likely legal solution is a class-action suit by the people who have been slammed, where some of the other issues of fraudulent marketing can be raised and the court can be used in an efficient manner collectively, rather than individually. Jeff Sicherman