The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Verizon Fails at math... LOL
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 9th, 2006 7:48 PM Author: sepia motley ape http://verizonfails.ytmnd.com/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7180853) |
 |
Date: December 9th, 2006 8:37 PM Author: Soul-stirring twisted half-breed Blog Summary: http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ You tube recording (22 mins) http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0HyxQv97Q Full recording (27 mins): http://media.putfile.com/Verizon-Bad-Math Summary / Cliff Notes : http://verizonfails.ytmnd.com/
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 8:51 PM Author: Electric Chocolate Theater Stage The youtube is long, but hilarious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181410) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 8:55 PM Author: burgundy range black woman agreed, i'm listening now...
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: mauve state awesome (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182612) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:00 PM Author: burgundy range black woman wow... just wow. Do they stricly hire idiots? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181491) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:01 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse I wonder if the operators just dislike him, because he seems nerdy, and are fucking with him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181502) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:01 PM Author: bateful french principal's office summary for those of us studying for finals?
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:02 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse Basically 4 different verizon billing people can't tell the difference between 0.002 dollars and 0.002 cents. He was quoted 0.002 cents/KB, but what charged 0.002 dollars/KB and is trying to get a refund. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181515) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:05 PM Author: bateful french principal's office lol, funny. a similar thing happened to me. they put me on the wrong pricing plan--i was on the data pricing plan and ended up with a totla bill of over $300. they didn't dispute the mistake but it was like pulling teeth for them to change it correctly. because the change/refund would occur on my next bill, and because they kept fucking it up, i had to wait 4 months to get my proper credit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181553) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:06 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse I wonder if they're trained to do this, in the hopes that you will go away without having to refund your money. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181573) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:15 PM Author: bateful french principal's office i'm thinking that maybe each supervisor/office/operate is allowed X amount of credits to refund back to customers (i know of a couple retailers that do this as an incentive to managers not to give out too many refunds or give shit for free to friends), so they pull every stop possible to not give refunds. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181671) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:07 PM Author: burgundy range black woman maybe... but they sound like they just don't get it. Plus I doubt the whole 'let's fuck with our customers' stops at the supervisor level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181581) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:04 PM Author: burgundy range black woman This sounds like a nice formula for a class action
Verizon quotes its customers .002 cents Verizon charges its customers .002 dollars Customers pay little in large numbers, they don't notice/care Lawyer steps in, sues verizon for overcharging customers Average affected customer gets $.15 Lawyer gets 30% of settlement Lawyer gets a new car! |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:05 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse The lawyer would settle for $0.01 per customer and $500k legal fees. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181566) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:09 PM Author: burgundy range black woman sigh, all this class action talk is making me worry about my civ pro final.... maybe i should stop fucking around and study. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181601) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: flatulent gunner exactly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182102) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:09 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert he should have known that the rate was wrong. 0.002 cents is so low no reasonable person could think it was right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181603) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:10 PM Author: Titillating crotch I don't know. Maybe he doesn't have a clue how much blackberry usage it takes to use a "kilobyte" of data. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181618) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:12 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert sorry. he thinks he should be charged 72 cents for that much use? wrong. why would anyone even buy landline internet? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181640) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:15 PM Author: Titillating crotch What's "that much use"? He has no concept of megabytes and gigabytes and whether using your blackberry to send a couple emails is a lot or a little use. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181669) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:21 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert wrong, he knew it was a steal as he had them document the price (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181727) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:23 PM Author: Titillating crotch Some people are paranoid and would always have anyone document the price to protect themselves whether they thought it was a steal or not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181743) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:34 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert yes thats the most logical explanation here. moron (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181858) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:16 PM Author: bateful french principal's office becasue downloading 100 megabytes would be $72 and nearly 2x-3x the rate of landlines. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181685) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:12 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs reasonable person probably has not idea what the market rate for that is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181632) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:13 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert then why did he specifically ask them to note the price in his account after it was quoted to him? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181654) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:16 PM Author: Titillating crotch This guy's probably the type that has everyone note the price of anything when he gets something like that over the phone. He's not capitalizing on what he thinks is a great deal; just getting it documented. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181677) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:22 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert you must be a shitty lawyer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181735) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:24 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs you're an idiot. Do you by chance have any relation to ursula/nurseratchet? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181757) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:34 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert i am ursula. same account as this so you are no einstein. i have nothing to do w/ nurseratchet who doesnt post here anymore (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181851) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:24 PM Author: burgundy range black woman Are you sure you passed a bar exam? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181760) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:15 PM Author: hot indigo whorehouse he confirmed it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181670) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:47 PM Author: cerise bespoke becky titcr. what else is he supposed to do, keep calling until someone gives him a more expensive rate? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181986) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:29 PM Author: Adventurous primrose parlor he also attempted to point it out to them. You only have a duty to inform them they made a mistake wrt terms. if they then refuse to believe, or in this case understand, you are no longer on the hook. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183029) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:10 PM Author: Titillating crotch Does he have any proof as to what he was quoted other than his word and his word that the 1st rep SAID she was documenting his account? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181609) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:11 PM Author: burgundy range black woman yea, the mp3 has several people quoting him .002 CENTS, also one supervisor rep sound like he's reading from a manual or contract and on the manual it state .002 cents
also seems like its on his account, someone 'noted' it.
EDIT: what i'm trying to say is, yes. sounds like there is a manual somewhere bc a rep read straight from it and said .002 cents. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:13 PM Author: Titillating crotch The people on the recording weren't QUOTING him anything BEFORE he incurred the charges. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181651) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:16 PM Author: burgundy range black woman excellent observation dood!
your point? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:17 PM Author: Titillating crotch My point is that, other than his word, there's no way of knowing what he was actually quoted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181691) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:23 PM Author: burgundy range black woman except for the recording on his blog that has verizon reps confirming that the price is .002 cents that he was given was correct (for christ's sake they *insist* on saying .002 cents per kb). And my point about the fact that one of the reps sounds like he's reading off a manual when he states "...in canada the rate is.. yea yea its .002 cents" is that a lawyer would probably be able to get his hands on that manual.
So uh, yea actually there is another way of knowning what he was actually quoted. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:28 PM Author: Titillating crotch They're likely reading wrong from the manual, I'd think. That they confirmed AFTER he incurred the charges doesn't tell us what he was QUOTED BEFORE he incurred the charges. It's probably a pretty good inference that the rep who quoted him the price was as dumb as all the other reps, but he has no PROOF!
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:29 PM Author: burgundy range black woman This is where I started thinking you didn't just miss a detail and are actually kinda dumb ----> "They're likely reading wrong from the manual, I'd think." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181801) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:30 PM Author: Titillating crotch You've heard this recording. If the manual says "$0.002," do you think the dumbass rep likely has any clue whether that means .002 dollars or .002 cents? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181816) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:34 PM Author: burgundy range black woman We're assuming the manual reads $0.002. Its just as possible it states 0.002¢ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181856) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: Titillating crotch You are correct. The people writing the manuals may very well be just as stupid.
Regardless, there's still no proof of what he was quoted before he made the calls. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:39 PM Author: burgundy range black woman unless the note made on his account by the first rep he spoke to states .002 cents.
otherwise you're right it would be hard to prove what exactly he was quoted, but I wouldn't say that would be end of the matter. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:42 PM Author: Titillating crotch Yeah, the note would definitely help. But even then, the note is so unreliable as proof of what he was TOLD given that the rep who made the note probably had no fucking clue what .002c vs. $.002 was. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181935) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs if your last argument is that the rep had no clue was 002c v. $.002 is, then that goes to show that the caller is telling the truth. If I were a juror, I would give this guy his $72 in damages as well as about $100 million in punitive because Verizon makes a business out of overcharging customers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181955) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:47 PM Author: Titillating crotch "if your last argument is that the rep had no clue was 002c v. $.002 is, then that goes to show that the caller is telling the truth. "
That's one inference. Another inference is he knew exactly what was going on and was trying to capitalize on their stupidity. While your inference may be the better of the inferences, there's still no proof other than his word. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:04 PM Author: Floppy hall volcanic crater capitalize on their stupidity?
they repeatedly quote him a rate of .002 cents/kB, I don't see why it's a problem that he expects to pay this rate and not 100 fold this rate.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:05 PM Author: Titillating crotch If I were representing VZW, I would portray him as a scam-artist who knew exactly what he was doing and what he should be paying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182130) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:17 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs The only scam artist here is Verizon. They tell people they have to pay X, and then charge them 100X. Any reasonable person would see this. You are flaming at this point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182243) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:21 PM Author: Titillating crotch I agree that VZW is the scam artist here. But if this guy is unlikeable, and VZW has a good lawyer, they may see him as a scam artist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182285) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold which, every time you said just about anything, would lead to: "objection. relevance. contracts are interpreted objectively, not subjectively." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182256) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: Titillating crotch Opening/closing statements, dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182269) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs you would get fucking reamed at closing arguments (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182292) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:26 PM Author: Titillating crotch It depends how he comes off to the jury when he goes up. If the jury doesn't like him, then maybe not. Would you choose a different "theme" for VZW if you were representing them, besides portraying them as a scam artist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182350) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold if i were verizon, i'd settle -- by which i mean write off the charge -- so as not to make my company look like a collection of idiots. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182371) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:29 PM Author: Titillating crotch Assume he won't settle for whatever reason, which is likely. He may want the publicity and doesn't care so much about getting a check, or be irrationally valuing his chances of getting some high damages award. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182392) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold doesn't matter. he can't force verizon into litigation if there are no damages. verizon just needs to wipe off the charge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182411) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:32 PM Author: Titillating crotch He could plead a case for punis; some states allow punis for egregious sorts of breaches of contracts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182439) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs i would refuse to settle and go for punis if I were him. I hate cell phone companies with a passion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182450) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: Titillating crotch Play devil's advocate, then, and tell me how you'd defend VZW thematically (we've discussed the merits enough). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182481) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:42 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold theme: legitimate confusion.
claim: if legitimate confusion, not egregious (or whatever the statutory standard is).
without knowing what the standard is, i can't say much more about it.
however, i do think verizon deserves to get fucked. they are failing at one of the precise things they shouldn't be failing at. what sort of company hires people to handle billing who can't even comprehend the bill? verizon failed to properly train its staff. verizon failed to hire good workers. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: Titillating crotch Forget about punitives. Just put it in small clams court or something similar and just about the $72. Legit confusion won't win you there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182577) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:53 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold in which case they shouldn't even show up because it's not worth their time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182650) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: Titillating crotch It's a fucking hypothetical. How would you defend VZW? Do you have anything better than portraying him as a scam artist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182657) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:56 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold i'd go with confusion or contrition. once it comes out that they were trying to charge him 100x as much, BIG BAD COMPANY isn't going to look very sympathetic.
furthermore, the scam artist tactic will hurt them outside of the court case. confusion and contrition will not hurt them as much. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:00 PM Author: Titillating crotch That's fair. Everyone hates cell phone companies. I think some other megacorporations could get away with portraying an individual plaintiff as a scam artist. Given a jury pool drawn from the corporation's HQ, a well-liked corp that is good with PR (donating to local causes, employing people) could get away with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182708) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: bateful french principal's office what the fuck difference does it make? if they told him that was the price and he relied on it, then they're stuck. especially given the fact that he (at least post hoc) makes it the price of .002 cents sound reasonable given the fact that he has an unlimited plan and downloads gigs/month. litigator isn't going to win this case. in fact--all schtick/flame aside--how any biglaw lawyer can be this dense and disconnected from the realworld. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181889) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: Titillating crotch He can't prove what price he was told before he relied on it. That's the problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181949) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:49 PM Author: bateful french principal's office and all i'm saying is that it can certainly be "inferred" from the evidence provided. and it's reasonable to say that judges and juries would be more than willing to make such an inference. if, in your experience, you disagree, then by all means correct me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181993) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:52 PM Author: Titillating crotch Yes, I think you can infer that he's telling the truth, but I think you can also infer -- given the lack of direct proof -- that he's trying to pull a fast one.
Juries aren't going to understand .002c vs. $.002. They'll listen to the recording and be just as confused as the idiotic verizon reps and will render a verdict based on whether the guy came off as likable. He probably will come off as a douche and they may stiff him. I don't think a judge could throw out a jury verdict going either way at JMOL.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:03 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold a simple chart would very easily show the math. draw two columns. at the top write one rate in each column. lay out the math. the bill amount will be at the bottom. all the jury has to decide is whether they said cents or dollars.
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9836/verizonrateszy0.gif
and once they show the multiple written logs showing cents, it's easy for the jury to pick the right column.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: Titillating crotch Juries are dumb. We've done simulated juries to prep cases for trial. That sort of demonstrative will go way the hell over many of their heads. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182145) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:09 PM Author: bateful french principal's office not really. just take out a dollar and imagine this divide into 1000. then take out a penny and say imagine this divided by a 1000. i think they'd get it pretty easily. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182167) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold i don't think it would. the issue isn't really math. the issue is really the word "dollars" versus the word "cents."
how they frame it: if they said "cents," the bill must be 70 cents. if they said "dollars," the bill must be 70 dollars.
it's no more complicated than that.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:06 PM Author: swashbuckling mental disorder "Juries aren't going to understand .002c vs. $.002. They'll listen to the recording and be just as confused as the idiotic verizon reps"
Hahahaha, I'm actually in physical pain after reading this post. You have really taken it to a whole different level now. I bet you actual believe this and that it comforts you in your insipid, TTT station in life. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:08 PM Author: Titillating crotch Do you think the people who show up for jury duty are, on the average, any smarter or better at math than your average verizon rep? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182153) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: mint hell I'm beginning to question whether you are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182181) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:54 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit listen to the recording. both before he was charged and afterwards when he's contesting it, he's quoted 0.002 cents/kb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182040) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:57 PM Author: Titillating crotch Is this a different recording than the ytmnd? I've seen ytmnd and read his blog. Based on that record, he would lose. If what you're saying is correct, he will win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182066) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit i'm listening to the youtube recording. it was made after he was charged. the rep reads 0.002 cents/kb from the manual and notes that it was written several times in the caller's account notes prior to his charge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182096) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:10 PM Author: Titillating crotch OK, so you don't have a recording of the call prior to the charges? That's what I thought. What the rep wrote on the notes aren't necessarily what the rep said to the caller. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182170) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit then why does it say 0.002 cents/kb in both the notes and the manual? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182186) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:15 PM Author: Titillating crotch We don't know what it says in the notes or the manual. We have no idea whether the reps, who themselves don't know .002c vs. .002dollars, correctly read from either the notes or the manual. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182225) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit it could say 2000 dollar/kb in the manual and notes. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the price verbally quoted multiple times is the price he should be charged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182301) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: Titillating crotch The only thing that matters is whether he can prove the price he was quoted before he made the calls. He wasn't QUOTED a price after he made the calls. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182370) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:35 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold verizon *agrees* that it quoted 0.002 cents.
down and dirty version --
guy: "you said you quoted me 0.002 cents."
verizon: "that's right."
guy: "you messed up when you calculated my bill."
verizon: "no, we didn't."
issue: calculation, not interpretation of the offer.
the only issue is computation. there is no interpretation in computation. it's mechanistic. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:38 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit yes and when he's talking to one of the first reps, the rep goes and scans the manual for 30 secs before coming back and saying "for data used while roaming in canada, 0.002 cents/kb will be charged." this rep and the others may all be making the same error, but how can they possibly charge a price different from the one that many of them read to him? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182504) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:39 PM Author: Titillating crotch What do you mean by "agrees"?
Is it a reformation to whatever contract they had before? No, because there was no intent to reform any contract; verizon rep was just saying what understood him to have been quoted.
It's a binding admission from an evidentiary standpoint? No way.
Then what? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "What do you mean by "agrees"?"
they explicitly say the monetary unit used per unit of data is "cents." when he asks if it says "0.002 cents," they say "yes."
"verizon rep was just saying what understood him to have been quoted."
every rep said the same thing.
"It's a binding admission from an evidentiary standpoint?"
three words: independent legal significance. we don't need to worry about your attempt to shoe horn this into some sort of hearsay doctrine. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: Titillating crotch There is no recording of any conv that occurred before he made the calls. There's accordingly no recording of any agreement. What they told him after he made the calls isn't an agreement over the price of the calls he already made. Is this that hard for you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182630) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold there is a written recording in the notes. there is, accordingly, a recording of the agreement. what they told him after he made the initial call is corroborating evidence of the preexisting agreement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182667) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:02 PM Author: Titillating crotch Given that no verizon employee seems to know the difference between .002c and .002 dollars, the written notes aren't probative of what the writer of the notes actually SAID to the caller. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182738) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:25 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold if the terms are meaningless, there's no contract at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182981) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:30 PM Author: Titillating crotch Who said they're meaningless? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183036) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:33 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold from verizon's perspective, it's either that or synonymous. you choose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183060) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:55 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit i don't understand why the charge that is noted in the caller's account notes multiple times isn't equivalent to a recording made beforehand. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182675) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: Titillating crotch Because the notes aren't reliable. The author of the notes likely had no idea how to put to writing what he/she told the caller. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182758) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:08 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit the caller should interpret the bill he received in the same manner then. a charge reading $70.00 should be interpreted as 70.00 cents. how is he to know the bill is reliable? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182796) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:15 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold it's true that the terms must be contrued consistently. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183349) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:05 PM Author: Floppy hall volcanic crater sometimes it helps to actually listen to the recording (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182126) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:24 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse So you're saying the operators should have just said, "no, we quoted you 0.002 dollars/kb" and told him to fuck off. That would have actually worked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181762) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:18 PM Author: bateful french principal's office yeah, because a corporations pricing structure will change within a few days.
it's a good thing "2nd year litigators" are stuck doing discovery and not actually arguing anything before a court.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:25 PM Author: Titillating crotch How the fuck is he going to claim he was PROMISED .002 cents when his only recording is AFTER he incurred the usage? What you said has nothing to do with anything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181766) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:32 PM Author: bateful french principal's office put yourself in the place of a judge or juror: 4 operators quote the price after he incurred the charges; he claims he was quoted that price before he accepted the service and also has a reasonable reason for being conerned whether it was .002 dollars or cents.
now, which conclusion do you think is more likely: (1) that verizon originally quoted him .002 dollars and then a few days later changed their price to .002 cents OR (2) that they are a bunch of fuck ups? personally, i'd go with theory (1). |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:34 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs option #2, clearly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181853) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:40 PM Author: Titillating crotch I'd go with (2)-- none of the operators he spoke to have any clue and there's no way to know what the hell he was quoted. I'd also select (3) -- that the jury will likely have no clue about what .002 dollars is vs. .002 cents themselves. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181918) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:50 PM Author: bateful french principal's office so you think that verizon actually changed the pricing plan within the few days after he called? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182006) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:56 PM Author: Titillating crotch No, they didn't change anything. This is what may have happened:
The rep who gave the quote may have said the correct price but documented the incorrect price in the system. And when he called a few days later, all the other morons read the wrong price. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:59 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs that's a slightly plausible, but shitty defense. verizon loses this one (preponderance of the evidence standard). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182071) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:03 PM Author: bateful french principal's office if he can show a pattern of behavior, i'd also bet on high punitive damages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182109) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: Titillating crotch Juries don't apply burdens of proof as we would. They do whatever they feel like. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182180) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:17 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182234) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:55 PM Author: cerise bespoke becky that's what experts are for (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182046) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:58 PM Author: Titillating crotch What kind of knowledge, education, experience, etc. do you need to become an expert on interpreting Verizon call center stupidity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182069) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:36 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold presumably verizon doesn't operate on verbal contracts. of course, they could certainly try. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181875) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: burgundy range black woman Have you taken K's? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181884) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs The law applies doesn't apply any differently to Verizon. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181888) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:46 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold doesn't seem to matter. the 0.002 cents quote seems to have been offered and accepted orally and in writing. i hadn't gotten to the written part in the audio when i posted before. i was going on the first few minutes of the long version of the audio. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181978) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:54 PM Author: Titillating crotch "the 0.002 cents quote seems to have been offered and accepted orally and in writing."
What's your basis for saying this? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:22 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold - multiple notes (assume it matches their reading, we don't have xoxo discovery)
- oral evidence confirms the written artifact
AND
- if there's not a prohibition on oral modifications, they quote cents in the audio. if i remember correctly, the verizon people only mention dollars in relation to the calculation. but the issue is the quoted offer. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:14 PM Author: Titillating crotch Notes aren't reliable as I stated above.
There cannot be an oral modification. Neither party understood there to be any modification of the contract after the calls were made. The verizon rep thought she was stating the previously price, not agreeing to a different price. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:19 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold you don't know there can't be an oral modification. i formed a new contract with my cell phone company over the phone.
you can argue reliability and get anywhere without a positive vision of what *is* reliable. how can the bill be reliable? how can the bill be taken as a representation of the guy's obligation to pay verizon? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:24 PM Author: Titillating crotch You heard the call that you are suggesting might be an oral modification. Where is there intent by either party to MODIFY the price. They're discussing that the price should be and/or what he was told.
You make an interesting point re: the bill. The same idiots may be writing the bill ;) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:29 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold whether you characterize it as a contract formation or modification doesn't really matter. it's one or the other. the legal significance is the same. in either instance, both parties seem to have assented to the proposition that verizon would provide data to the guy at a rate of 0.002 cents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183025) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:35 PM Author: Titillating crotch You're confusing issues. Lets call the call before he did the usage call #1. Lets call the call after he made the usage (where the rep said what was in the notes) call #2.
If they agreed on $.002 during call #1, then there could be no contract modification when the rep in call #2 said that he was quoted .002c and said that the rate was .002c. There was simply no intent by either party to modify the price of call #1. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:39 PM Author: Titillating crotch If he had proof that he was promised something, he's definitely got a good claim for some sort of relief, at least based on reliance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181903) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:43 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold supervisor: "i'm going by what they documented here in the system."
looks like the oral part doesn't matter. i hadn't gotten that far when i posted before. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: Titillating crotch Posted earlier:
"Yeah, the note would definitely help. But even then, the note is so unreliable as proof of what he was TOLD given that the rep who made the note probably had no fucking clue what .002c vs. $.002 was." |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo The rep would have SAID the same thing the rep WROTE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182252) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: Titillating crotch Obviously? If the rep's just as much of an idiot as the other reps on the recording, do you really think it's obvious that the rep said ".002 cents" just because she wrote .002 cents in the notes (we don't even know what she wrote)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182419) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182625) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: Titillating crotch "And we do know what the person wrote, because they repeat it back on the recording."
Again, you falsely assume that the rep -- a rep who admittedly doesn't understand .002c from .002dollars -- read the note properly when she purported to state what was in the note. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182700) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: Titillating crotch I'm giving you a chain of events that could have occurred -- and that could be inferred -- whereby the caller was quote $.002 before he made the calls. I'm not making any assumptions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182785) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo Your chain of events is highly unlikely and completely unprovable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182829) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:17 PM Author: Titillating crotch The customer has to prove he did have a promise of $0.002; it's not verizon's burden to prove the negative. I submit that there's a set of potential facts/inferences by which there is no promise. That's all. You're closed-minded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182895) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:18 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo You've toned your argument down a lot from where you started (two hours ago), when you thought he had no claim. Unfortunately for you, the evidence of your original position still remains.
--
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:25 PM Author: 2nd Year Biglaw Litigator
How the fuck is he going to claim he was PROMISED .002 cents when his only recording is AFTER he incurred the usage? What you said has nothing to do with anything.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181766)
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:28 PM Author: Titillating crotch I still maintain that he has nothing to prove that he was promised .002 cents. I never said he has no colorable claim that can survive the well-pleaded complaint rule. Of course, I've refined my arguments having thought about this for two hours, which you seem totally unwilling to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183012) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:31 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "I still maintain that he has nothing to prove that he was promised .002 cents."
verizon concedes that fact.
********************* *********************
question: at what point does *verizon* claim the rate to be anything other than 0.002 cents?
********************* ********************* |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:38 PM Author: Titillating crotch Verizon's defense is that the rate is $.002 and that's what he was correctly told on the phone before he incurred the charges. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183092) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo Yet Verizon's reps repeatedly claim that the rate is .002 cents, as you would know if you bothered to listen to the recording. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183104) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: Titillating crotch All that matters is what the guy was told BEFORE HE INCURRED THE CHARGES. We don't know that, and you'd know we don't have that call if you've listened to the recording. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183141) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold subsequent to the initial call, all parties agree that the rate previously quoted was 0.002 cents. in absense of evidence to the contrary, that is the rate.
can you identify any evidence to the contrary? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:56 PM Author: Titillating crotch Verizon doesn't need evidence to the contrary. That the rep after the initial call mistakenly stated the rate and attempted to determine what the guy was told on the initial call does not prove what is "the rate." A valid inference from the fact that "all parties agree that the rate previously quoted was 0.002 cents" was that the agent misinterpreted the rate previously quoted and didn't know it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183217) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo Replace "the agent misinterpreted" with "the five agents, including supervisors, all misinterpreted" and you'll have a more relevant sentence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183230) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:01 AM Author: Titillating crotch Verizon's best (and only) argument is that, while the reps/supervisors mistated the price after the calls were made, but he can't prove that that the rep misstated the price before the calls were made. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183244) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo And that extremely weak argument is easily trumped by the evidence that Verizon employees, including supervisors, routinely misstate the rate as ".002 cents."
It doesn't help your argument that even after having the math explained to them, the employees (including supervisors) continue to insist that the rate is ".002 cents." |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:05 AM Author: Titillating crotch It's NOT evidence. It's verizon's theory of the case, that they don't even have to prove because the customer has to prove that the quoted rate was indeed .002c. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183274) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:07 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold all evidence says cents.
no evidence says dollars.
guy claims cents.
verizon claims cents.
guy wins motion for summary judgment. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:13 AM Author: Titillating crotch There's no evidence of the call. There's a set of facts/inferences such that he could have been quoted $.002, which I've laid out, so VZW will survive SJ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183337) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:17 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "There's no evidence of the call."
notes are evidence. subsequent speech is evidence.
"There's a set of facts/inferences..."
THAT'S WHAT EVIDENCE ***IS***.
no evidence says dollars.
all evidence says cents.
guy claims cents.
verizon agrees with cents.
no genuine issue of material fact. motion for summary judgment goes to guy. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:26 AM Author: Titillating crotch I should have said there's no reliable evidence of the call. I apologize. Here, the notes and subsequent speech aren't reliable evidence of the call. Given the fact that a rational juror could find this evidence incredible and discount it, there's a dispute as to the material facts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183418) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:30 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "I should have said there's no reliable evidence of the call."
are you high? everyone agrees that the call happened. everyone agrees that it says cents. there's no dispute. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:33 AM Author: Titillating crotch There's a dispute about whether the post-usage rep properly read the note in the system (which may very well say dollars). And even if the notes say cents, there's a dispute about whether the pre-usage rep told him dollars despite writing cents in the notes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183479) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:18 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo In the unlikely event that VZW survived SJ they would get crushed at trial. Crushed. Listen to the recording. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183370) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:23 AM Author: Titillating crotch I agree that they'd get crushed because people hate verizon and hate cell phone companies. The only way he'd win is if the jury hates him and he seems like a scam artist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183397) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo The first use of "evidence" was a typo. I edited before you posted.
The customer has an easy case, and the evidence we have already seen is more than sufficient to meet his preponderance burden. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:06 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "the rep after the initial call mistakenly stated the rate"
where's the evidence?
"the agent misinterpreted the rate previously quoted and didn't know it."
where's the evidence?
why did all parties agree in the audio recording that the rate is in cents?
why did no party dispute that the rate is in cents? |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:16 AM Author: Titillating crotch I'm stating vzw's theory of the the case; they don't need to prove those facts that you're asking for evidence on.
Verizon isn't precluded from claiming the rate is 0.002$ in litigation because its idiotic reps who he spoke to after the data usage were uninformed. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:29 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold their legal claim to the contrary isn't sufficient to pass summary judgment. they have to allege, with basis, a genuine dispute of material facts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183447) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:34 AM Author: Titillating crotch See above. I outlined my summary judgment opposition brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183486) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:51 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183174) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "Verizon's defense is that the rate is $.002"
where do they claim that?
"he was correctly told on the phone before he incurred the charges."
where's the evidence of that? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:47 PM Author: Titillating crotch You asked me what they'd say, and I'm speculating as to the position they pretty much have to take and are likely to take. There's no evidence that "he was correctly told on the phone before he incurred the charges," but they don't have to prove the negative as it's his burden to prove that he was told .002c. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183151) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:50 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "it's his burden to prove that he was told .002c."
he has 27 minutes of evidence. verizon never disputes the rate. they dispute the calculation.
game over for verizon unless the have evidence to the contrary. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant Cut your losses, homie.
Evidence is that which has any tendency to make more or less likely the existence of a material fact.
His testimony that he was quoted in cents and the notations in his account log that he was quoted in cents are evidence that he was quoted in cents.
HTH. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:54 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold and -- this is huge -- there's no evidence to the contrary. all evidence points to the terms being quoted in cents. furthermore, verizon doesn't even claim (with or without evidence) that they quoted the rate to him in dollars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183207) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:58 PM Author: Titillating crotch Evidence that the jury thinks is unreliable can be disregarded by the jury (or even thrown out by the court). HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183229) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant A jury COULD disregard evidence, but that doesn't mean it will. So all your bullshit about him not having "direct" proof disappears. Also a court certainly cannot make judgments as to the weight of the evidence and throw out evidence it thinks is unreliable, unless the evidence is unreliable as a matter of law (i.e., unqualified expert testimony, hearsay, etc.).
HTFH. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:10 AM Author: Titillating crotch I've repeatedly said that the jury is more likely to make inferences favoring the customer, unless they hate the guy. I'm establishing a theory of the case for verizon whereby the jury can disregard incredible evidence and find that there's no proof of a price quote of .002c before the data usage.
The court could throw it out under 403 (confusing/misleading), but it's unlikely they would. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:32 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183051) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: Titillating crotch Did you listen to the recording of the call from before he incurred the charges? No. Neither have I. It doesn't exist. That's what I said I didn't listen to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183083) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo You had to ask other posters for the details. You obviously didn't listen to ANYTHING before you put together your argument, which you have been backpedalling way from ever since. I doubt that you've listened to the recording even now, after arguing about it for two hours. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183087) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: Titillating crotch One poster claimed to have heard the call from before the charges were incurred. I wanted to know the details of that call. As it turns out, that poster never heard such a call, as that call doesn't exist on the internet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183130) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo You haven't listened to the recording, so you ignore the weight of the evidence against you.
I sincerely hope you act more thoughtfully if you ever represent a real client. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:20 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit this is noteworthy. every single rep says "0.002 cents/kb" whether reading from the manual or the caller's notes. this makes it more likely the reps who made the notes in his account said "0.002 cents" AND that one of those reps actually wrote "0.002 cents" in the notes themselves. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182928) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:45 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs "looks like the oral part doesn't matter"
have you taken K's? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:54 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold my original background assumption: the terms of the original contract prohibit oral modifactions. and that's permissible as a matter of contract law.
the revelation: the oral agreement, regardless of whether it was permitted as a modification under the original contract, was also made in writing. therefore, my original background assumption becomes irrelevant.
yes, i've taken contracts. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:00 PM Author: Titillating crotch There's always some equitable / quasi-contract / reasonable reliance stuff he can win on, notwithstanding an anti-waiver provision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182080) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold that means he has multiple ways to win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182483) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:41 PM Author: Titillating crotch Yeah, it just means he's got a well pleaded complaint despite an anti-waiver provision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182528) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:43 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse How many people are you taking on this dispute? You're handling them pretty well. You just keep throwing shit at them. They seem worn out and I smell settlement in your favor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182554) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold if oral modification is permissible: he will win a k action. and he can still win on reliance.
if oral modification is impermissible: he will win a k action. and he can still win on reliance.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:56 PM Author: Titillating crotch I'm fine with that. Reliance is a "k action" anyway, it's an equitable doctrine that's part of the law of contracts (as opposed to equity). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182682) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:25 PM Author: rose jap market He said he was quoted 0.002 cents, and the manager confirms this as he reads it off of some manual later in the call.
The caller is being an asshole, but it's ridiculous how friggin' stupid these Verizon reps are. It's funny, because I tried to get a job at Comcast at some point in the past as a customer service rep at a call center and was rejected. And yet these monkeys can't even distinguish between 0.002 dollars and 0.002 cents. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:28 PM Author: burgundy range black woman 2nd year litigator is confirming the view that perhaps biglaw junior attys don't get much real work. He fails to capture this point you're making (which I tried to explain to him). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181796) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:32 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs no, the manuel does NOT say 0.002 cents.
The manual likely says "$0.002" and the idiots read that as "0.002 cents" because they are retards. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:29 PM Author: Titillating crotch The manager doesn't know how to read .002 cents vs. .002 dollars. What the manager SAID he was quoted isn't what he was quoted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181802) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:31 PM Author: burgundy range black woman Your writing STYLE sounds a LOT like the EMAIL one of xoxo POSTERS got earlier from a CRAIGSLIST white GUY ranting about not getting MIDDLE eastern PUSSY.
FAGGOT. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:46 PM Author: rose jap market Ah, this is probably the case. Anyhow, my point still stands that the manager and the CSR are both idiots, and I have no idea why I wasn't hired when I am clearly superior to these people in both math skills and customer service skills. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181971) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:49 PM Author: Titillating crotch They're all idiots at Verizon. But I don't this guy can win based on the facts that we have. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181999) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:53 PM Author: burgundy range black woman Wrong.
As you stated above, if he was to take this to trial, and for some reason they didn't settle, a jury is just as likely to infer that he was quoted and relied on .002 cents. They could also infer that he wasn't quoted that money, and is just a crafty jew type. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:54 PM Author: cerise bespoke becky they'd infer the former, given that most people have probably had similarly frustrating experiences with retarded customer service reps, and that they've consistently quoted him the wrong rate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182042) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: Titillating crotch I don't think he can win in a world of rational world with jurors of 110 IQs, but I would agree with everything you have posted here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182098) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:53 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs so you agree that 1) All the Verizon people are idiots, 2) they don't know the difference between $0.002 and 0.002 cents, 3) there is a recording of many of them quoting him 0.002 cents after the fact, and 4) he swears they quoted 0.002 cents before the fact, and you don't think a jury, from all 4 of these facts, will draw the simple conclusion that they quoted him 0.002 cents BEFORE the fact? ... unlikely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182027) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: bateful french principal's office at this point, i think he's flaming us. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182099) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:04 PM Author: Titillating crotch They'll draw whatever inference based on whether they like the guy or not. I think that's the better of the inferences, personally. But there's still no PROOF other than his own word. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182114) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: bateful french principal's office well in most civil cases there's rarely PROOF as you would seem to have. how do you prove what a dead man would've made in a lifetime? how do you prove that the deceased died from a specific company's absestos? how do you prove that but for a missing warning label, the plaintiff would not have cut off his hand, etc etc. it's all about reasonable inferences. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182140) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: Titillating crotch We're talking about oral contracts. Oftentimes there's strong evidence of what the oral contract was (an actual recording, a writing, a third-party witness, etc.) Here, the surrounding evidence isn't that great for him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182211) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs "Here, the surrounding evidence isn't that great for him."
Actually, the surrounding evidence is fucking fantastic for him, and for some strange reason you are the only one that doesn't see that. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: Titillating crotch It's not "that great" relative to the great pieces of evidence that I enumerated above. As I said, I believe he has the better of the inferences; I don't think it's fucking fantastic though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182261) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:21 PM Author: flatulent gunner you're such a stupid dork. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182271) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:21 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182279) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse See how he frustrates you into getting angry? That's the mark of a good litigator. If you did this IRL he would forward it to the judge and have you sanctioned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183133) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183238) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:03 AM Author: Titillating crotch I think the same about you as what you think about me (that you're dumb, ignorant, can't argue, etc.). Isn't that the way it always is among adversaries? I'm resorting to my arguments, and you're diverting things with personal attacks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183263) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:12 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo There's a reason nobody agrees with you. It's because your argument is ridiculous. You haven't even listened to the recording that you're arguing about.
And if you can't take the occasional personal attack, you really shouldn't post here. This place can hurt your feelings. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:21 AM Author: Titillating crotch I've listened to it, for chrissake. I'm not offended and can take the personal attack; I'm submitting that the personal attacks reflect your inability to argue with me.
And since when is consensus on this board reflective of something being correct? As you know, this board is filled with morons.
I've admitted that the customer has the better of the arguments and is likely to win unless the jury hates him. I'm merely pointing out the problems he'll have with proving his case and how he could potentially lose. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:24 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo You've suggested that the facts are not very favorable for the customer, which they are. You have also implied that Verizon's supposed argument (which you invented out of whole cloth) is reasonable, which it's not.
I don't think anyone's denying that THEORETICALLY a judge and jury could hate the customer and ignore the law, leading to a result in favor of Verizon. It could happen in an academic sense. But it wouldn't happen in reality. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:31 AM Author: Titillating crotch I've suggested repeatedly that the customer has the better of the inferences, while still maintaining that there's no direct proof (which is undoubtedly true). Most litigation positions "invented out of whole cloth" to make the best story that makes sense and has some hope of winning.
Juries weigh evidence and decide whether testimony is credible. He's going to go up and testify that he was quoted in dollars, and their job is to decide whether to believe him, and they could very well hate him and not believe him. That's what happens in real life, my friend. Juries operate on emotion and feeling. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:50 AM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo Yes, juries operate on emotion. And emotion is just as good for the customer as the facts are. Anyone who listens to that tape will feel immense sympathy for the customer, and feel strongly that Verizon is staffed by douchebags.
Even if a jury was full of people as mathematically uninformed as the Verizon employees, all they would need is a brief explanation of how the math works before they heard the tape. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:02 PM Author: Rusted wonderful brethren You think oral contracts are often documented with a recording? Here, he has his testimony, his Verizon account information on the Verizon computer in which the original rep noted that she quoted himthe price of .002 cents, and a recording of multiple Verizon employees confirming that he was quoted .002 cents. If you could not win the case with this evidence, I don't know if there is any case that you could win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182729) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: Titillating crotch I said I think he has the better of the inferences. But I also said that he has no direct proof of what he was quoted. He therefore has to rely on inferences, and inferences could go the other way if the jury really hates the guy.
As for oral contracts being documented with a recording, that's why many companies record all their calls "for quality control purposes." |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:12 PM Author: swashbuckling mental disorder "if you look at it on-paper-wise."
Loflsss... |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:18 PM Author: burgundy range black woman "seems like its a difference of opinions"
"NO, its a difference of understanding math"
LOL |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:17 PM Author: fragrant indirect expression crackhouse Question. Who would you rather hang out with, the caller or the Verizon people? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181695) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:18 PM Author: hot indigo whorehouse caller. i dont like huffing airplane glue (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181701) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:24 PM Author: mint hell the good stuff is the gold spray paint. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181763) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:26 PM Author: burgundy range black woman The verizon people, because the caller sounds like more of a 'James Kim' type of guy, and I don't like pussies that die in the wilderness too much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181779) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:35 PM Author: Geriatric indecent stead pervert lmao
good work on pwning people in this thread |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 9:37 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold the caller. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7181877) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:10 PM Author: flatulent gunner this is amazing, i'm about halfway through (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182173) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: flatulent gunner it's like trying to split a bill six ways with you and 5 umdbluedevils (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182204) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:15 PM Author: Pale appetizing dog poop hairy legs A+
I would have said "with 5 ursulas" as she would refuse to pay her portion of the bill because of a racist waiter. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: Fear-inspiring trip sneaky criminal I don't know, I'm not a mathematician! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182249) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182263) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:20 PM Author: flatulent gunner why didn't he just explain that .002cents = $.00002? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182266) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:24 PM Author: Titillating crotch Yeah, like they'll understand that. Why didn't he just explain it in scientific notation, i.e., .002cents = 10^-3 cents, there are 10^2 cents in every dollar, so 10^-3 cents = 10^-5 dollars = .00002 dollars? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182323) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:10 PM Author: saffron gay wizard lodge This cracked me up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182837) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:21 PM Author: Olive Abode International Law Enforcement Agency lolz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182937) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:25 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit the rep's head would have exploded, dood. "two one-hundred thousandths of a dollar? that doesn't even exist!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182332) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: flatulent gunner yeah, you're probably right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182369) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:29 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold i would have told them to write this http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9836/verizonrateszy0.gif on a piece of paper.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: rose jap market True. When the dude said 2 one thousandths I immediately cringed knowing that the Verizon manager would not understand anything said after that point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182607) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:35 PM Author: flatulent gunner it woulda been much easier to explain with a visual (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182465) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: curious genital piercing new version You're smarter than to suggest this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183293) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:23 PM Author: Exhilarant water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182313) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: Fear-inspiring trip sneaky criminal http://media.putfile.com/Verizon-Cant-Do-Math-Money-Remix-By-Davman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182407) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:41 PM Author: transparent tripping sandwich "i've been a supervisor here for almost a year and a half."
i have a feeling this cuts the other way. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:08 PM Author: burgundy range black woman I could almost hear his voice cracking and a few pimples on his face popping as he said it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182798) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: Fear-inspiring trip sneaky criminal I'm currently dating a VZN executive. Her tits got all perky when she realized that I'm 64" (= 6'4") tall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182581) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: Silver spectacular party of the first part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182754) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:09 PM Author: rose jap market 180! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182816) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: Big soggy clown I bet his account notes read "customer quoted at $0.002" and it was the same oral interpretative mistake made every time on the phone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182662) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Cordovan misunderstood pit this is likely. however, this is a telephone interaction. how is the caller to know that the reps are too stupid to read numbers correctly? also, since he had the reps record it multiple times, it's possible they wrote "0.002 cents" at some point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182699) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:00 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold in that case he merely wins on reliance. and that's essentially the case he makes on the phone. he says he used the data as he did in light of their rate quote. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182707) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:21 PM Author: Titillating crotch If the notes say "$0.002," there's still no direct evidence of what he was quoted on the phone. He still has no evidence to prove that she told him .002 cents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182935) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:42 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold there doesn't have to be "direct evidence." you're fabricating legal standards and doctrine out of whole cloth.
evidence of the agreement after the agreement is sufficient. example: people write a contract. the physical contract artifact is destroyed. people subsequently reaffirm their contract. the original contract is still valid.
contracts aren't paper. contracts aren't speech. those things are merely evidence of contracts. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:49 PM Author: Titillating crotch The "evidence of the agreement after the agreement" here is totally unreliable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183164) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold you have no evidence to the contrary.
none.
zero.
zip.
zilch.
nada.
he has evidence. some evidence always beats no evidence when the standard is a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence. 100% versus 0% easily meets that. and that's particularly true when verizon doesn't even make a contrary claim.
so let's get this straight.
there's no evidence that verizon ever claimed they quoted him 0.002 dollars. in the subsequent call verizon doesn't even claim they said that.
there is evidence that verizon claimed they quoted him 0.002 cents. both the caller and verizon agree that 0.002 cents is the appropriate rate. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:54 PM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant That's an issue of weight for the factfinder to decide. And no appellate court is going to reverse if the jury decides to believe George. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183201) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:00 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold with the evidence we have, verizon wouldn't even survive summary judgment. there's no issue of material fact.
verizon never claims the rate is in dollars. there is no evidence that the rate should have been in dollars.
the guy claims the rate is in cents. verizon agrees that the rate is in cents. there is evidence suggesting that rate is in cents.
the only issue on the evidence we have is one of computation. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:14 PM Author: mauve state you think the dumbasses at verizon who were on this tape figured out their error or were told about it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182869) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:15 PM Author: Silver spectacular party of the first part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182883) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:21 PM Author: mauve state i wish he asked for thier name or emial or something. so they could get floated with $0.002 = 0.002 cents LOL DUMB NIGGER PWNED emails (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7182933) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:22 PM Author: Big soggy clown Thing is, I'm sure that there are customers out there who are stupider than the Verizon reps. I imagine they get some great conversations with people who think there are 100 minutes in an hour.
So in this case they were probably able to walk away thinking they're 100% right (after all, a *computer* made those calculations!) and they just had to deal with another asshole customer who couldn't even understand that $0.02 = two cents. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: curious genital piercing new version This rep deserves to have his face shoved in a woodchipper.
No one should be allowed to be this stupid unless they are Russian. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:37 PM Author: flirting therapy You are all retarded for arguing about this. Not quite as retarded as the verizon people, but still retarded. Verizon sent a schedule of fees when he signed up for the service. This is his contract. He had a duty to read it. I assume it has the correct price. The people he was speaking to over the phone cant change the price. he knew that and it was not reasonable for him to rely on the modification.
That said, its not worth the 20 minutes the guy spent on the phone with all these reps. They should just give him the money and tell all their reps the difference between a dollar and a penny. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:41 PM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant No, you're fucking retarded. A written contract doesn't trump subsequent modifications. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183105) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:43 PM Author: flirting therapy do you think the call center rep has any authority to make a modification? they dont. did they guy on the phone think they did? no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183126) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:45 PM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant Yes, as an agent acting within the scope of his/her employment in quoting a price, the "call center rep" will bind the company. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183140) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:01 AM Author: flirting therapy sweet, so if a moron at my student loan center says my rate is .7% instead of 7% i can reduce my payments right? awesome, i think i will call there every day until i get a really dumb one and record his modification. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183241) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant This is correct. Similarly, if a moron lawyer decides to grab one too many secretarial tits one too many times, his firm will be picking up the tab on the judgment. Similarly, if you walk into a Mercedes dealership and a dipshit salesman sells you one without authorization for $20,000 off the sticker price, Mercedes will be unable to come repossess your car.
It's pretty sweet. I think you should get a job as a secretary and keep trying to get lawyers to grab your tits until you get a really dumb one who does. You should also keep going into car dealerships until a really dumb salesman offers you a really good deal. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:36 AM Author: flirting therapy "imilarly, if a moron lawyer decides to grab one too many secretarial tits one too many times, his firm will be picking up the tab on the judgment." we are not talking about vicarious liability in tort, well unless you are arguing there was an intentional misrepresentation about the pricing when he originally signed up
"Similarly, if you walk into a Mercedes dealership and a dipshit salesman sells you one without authorization for $20,000 off the sticker price, Mercedes will be unable to come repossess your car." also wrong. see restatement of restitution sec 12 comment c, illustration 8 |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:11 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "do you think the call center rep has any authority to make a modification?"
yes. they modify plans all the time. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:42 PM Author: Titillating crotch Consumers should be able to rely on information they get when they call a company to ask an intricate detail like this. He purportedly didn't think he was modifying the contract so he was purportedly relying on the info he received as the price in the contract and not a modification. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183117) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:46 PM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "This is his contract."
unless it was modified.
"The people he was speaking to over the phone cant change the price."
why not? people on the phone have changed my cell phone service. t-mobile changed my contract from 1000 minutes per month to 1500 minutes per month over the phone.
"he knew that and it was not reasonable for him to rely on the modification."
they seem to have confirmed multiple times from multiple people that the rate is 0.002 cents.
can you identify where verizon ever claims it was 0.002 dollars? |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:53 PM Author: flirting therapy uh, when you change your plan from 1000 to 1500 you get new pricing, i bet they send you a new schedule of fees. this is a new contract or agreement. the plans and the pricing are all available on their website. he didnt change anything in his plan, he just asked the price and the retarded phone rep said the wrong thing. if a verizon rep said the price was .2 dollars and the dude said ok would that be the new price?
i am sure that someone from verizon will eventually have a brain and give him a refund but there is no way a rep on the phone can change the pricing of verizon. |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:10 AM Author: offensive codepig cuckold "when you change your plan from 1000 to 1500 you get new pricing, i bet they send you a new schedule of fees."
never got one. never had to confirm that i got one. i called them. i said, "if you don't give me 500 more minutes per month, i'm leaving." they said, "we will give you 500 more minutes per month if you will stay for another year." i said, "that's fine." they said, "thanks for calling t-mobile." i pay my bill.
|
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:45 AM Author: flirting therapy so you canceled the old k and started a new one. assuming you had some time left on your k, you could probably get out of this under the statute of frauds if there is really no writing. they could to i would think. 1500 minutes per month at whatever price for over a year would need to be in writing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183580) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:38 PM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant I guess I'm coming in late on this little gem, but I just have to note that 2ndyearlitigator's (legal) idiocy on this thread is like some kind of poetic reprise of Verizon's (mathematical) idiocy.
1. George's bare testimony that he was quoted in cents would be enough to meet his burden of production. 2. A written notation need not "necessarily" (i.e., beyond any doubt at all) reflect an oral quote. It's pretty fucking probative though. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: buck-toothed stimulating selfie idiot We're now in the comments section. https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=516155314784643420&postID=2134166212339845861 |
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:52 PM Author: curious genital piercing new version This is unbelievable.
I honestly don't think these people should be allowed to live.
I mean, the company's mistake may be honest and I understand that. But the fact that the people with shitty college business degrees can't even understand what his complaint is? Impossible. They should be raped to death.
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2006 11:55 PM Author: Vengeful Site Mexican This thread gets a "B"!
(That's the highest grade a 3L can expect to get. Kudos!) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 3:20 PM Author: sepia motley ape yay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7186800) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:09 AM Author: buck-toothed stimulating selfie idiot http://xkcd.com/verizon/
WHAT NOW BITCHES! |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:12 AM Author: marvelous faggot firefighter immigrant Nice.
But why did you leave the name? |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:13 AM Author: buck-toothed stimulating selfie idiot That's from the blog's comments, but seemed so classically XOXO that it had to be imported. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183334) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:47 AM Author: Fear-inspiring trip sneaky criminal In accord with the official VZN policy that dollars = cents, people should start paying 1/100 of their bills. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183595) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2006 12:57 AM Author: hairless violent church foreskin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=542748&forum_id=2#7183671) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: razzle pisswyrm Dear Mike McDougal,
Thank you for bringing your concern to our attention. Verizon Wireless is committed to delivering the best service to our customers. Please be assured that appropriate action is being taken, and that we will continue to provide training to all of our employees.
Data charges reflected on Verizon Wireless billing statements are correct. Our charges for data are as follows:
Pay As You Go Rate o 1.5 cents per Kilobyte (0.015 dollars per KB) o 1024 Kilobytes (KB) is equal to 1 Megabyte (MB)
Canadian Data Roaming Rate o .002 dollars per Kilobyte o Equal to .2 cents per Kilobyte
It has been a pleasure assisting you today, and we appreciate your business. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please reply to this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Verizon Wireless Customer Service
"We never stop working for you!"
If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. If you are the intended recipient and are a Verizon Wireless customer, this response is subject to the terms of your Customer Agreement.
|