HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) (12/22/90)
Ed Hopper <ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com> wrote: >> 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, to which the Moderator replied: >[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 Pat, you've taken this position before, and I have had trouble understanding it before, and am still having trouble. If I am slammed without my knowledge, and get a phone bill from some company I've not given permission to carry my calls, I would like the legal situation to be such that I owe them no money for the calls. I did not give them permission to carry my traffic. I would consider it analogous to a situation in which some company delivered an unrequested product to my door and presented me with a bill. U.S. mail regs say I am entitled to keep the package and pay nothing for it as I did not ask for it. Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the tariffs, I can't address whether or not the tariffs allow it. If one were being really fussy, I would consider it more morally defensible for me to be required to pay the company I was slammed _FROM_ the money they would have charged me had they carried my calls, and owe the company slamming me nothing. If I got slammed, I would in fact refuse to pay and let them take me to court. I suspect that even if they had the legal backing to force me to pay, they would choose not to because of bad publicity. (Of course, I only make $10 or so long distance calls a month, so they wouldn't be losing lots of money.)