Termination fees illegal?

Carl wrote:
> George wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>>> D wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:38:24 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Carl wrote:
>>>>>> XS11E wrote:
>>>>>>> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99655
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an example of cry-baby consumers shooting themselves in
>>>>>> the foot. While I'm not a fan of Big Business, I understand that
>>>>>> early termination fees are necessary in order to allow carriers
>>>>>> to give away the phones at highly discounted prices. They intend
>>>>>> to make the money back over the life of the contract. That should
>>>>>> seem obvious. It is, after all, the goal of business to make a
>>>>>> profit.
>>>>> Sure, but they don't have to kick you in the face doing it. I
>>>>> accept the subsidy part but the phone companies were being awfully
>>>>> heavy handed the way they enforced the early termination fees and
>>>>> that is what rightfully got people mad. If the fee was say $175
>>>>> and you canceled the day before your contract expired they dinged
>>>>> you for the full $175. If you canceled a day later you paid
>>>>> nothing. I would love to hear an explanation how that was fair and
>>>>> reasonable.
>>>> If you had contracted to have someone build you a house, would you
>>>> be upset if he got everything done "except that last window put in?"
>>>> surely you would expect him to finish what he agreed to, right? so
>>>> why should a cell phone company be any differantly? you agreed to
>>>> keep service to a certain point, or pay the etf. why is it so
>>>> "unfair" to expect you to do as you say?
>>>>
>>>> To answer your question with another question, how is it not fair
>>>> and reasonable to expect someone to do as they agreed to? Not
>>>> almost do what they agreed to, but actually stick to the agreement?
>>>>
>>> Exactly what I was going to say (well, maybe not 'exactly', but
>>> pretty damn close). I don't get posters like George who expect to be
>>> protected by Big Brother from every mistake they can conceivably
>>> make and feel they have no obligation to the terms of the contract
>>> they entered into. When you sign a contract, George, read and
>>> understand the terms of it. And live with it. If you feel you're not
>>> competent enough, don't enter into them. But let's stop whining
>>> about everything, shall we?
>> Since you mentioned my name please *explicitly* quote in detail where
>> I even said anything like that.
>>
>> And let me ask you have you ever questioned a fee or negotiated a
>> price at any time. If so why did you do it?
>>
> I can't George. You didn't literally say, "I expect to be protected by Big
> Brother from every mistake I can conceivably make.". Rather, mine is a
> summary statement of what I've inferred from your postings. I think others
> agree, more or less. Like any generalization, it is arguable, I'll grant you
> that.
>

Got it, you (and it seems just like some others) decided that I wrote
something you didn't like and when you reread what I wrote can't quote
what you thought you saw. And *then* even though you can't quote me you
continue with the the argument against what you imagined I wrote with
more verbiage telling me that I should read contracts and the purpose of
ETFs as if you were replying to someone else's comments.


I've questioned a fee and negotiated a price. But I do that BEFORE
> I enter into the contract. I don't take what I can get for myself and then
> complain about the terms I don't like AFTER the contract has been signed.
> And that, if I'm not mistaken, is what this thread started about. Early
> termination fees have been a staple of the cell-phone industry for more than
> two decades. It is what allows the providers to give us "free" or
> "discounted" phones. I am a fan of the early termination fee system and
> understand its purpose. I am angered that someone, or some group, took the
> cell company to court and even more incensed that they actually WON! I am
> confident that this hollow "victory" will eventually result to us in a more
> complex, and more costly system. For example, look how well the divestiture
> of the telephone company did for us, based on some idiotic lawsuit of 30+
> years ago. I have NO chance at understanding my phone bill now, nor can I
> possibly calculate which system is best for me without consulting an
> engineer, and I have been slammed at least once until I got wise to that
> tactic. I can't possibly store all the different phone books I get, nor can
> I tell which are the "real" ones vs. the "others" since the walking fingers
> logo was not protected. I don't see where I've saved any money either. Do
> you? Now watch your "new every two" opportunity go out the window.
>
>

Justin wrote:
> George wrote on [Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:59:53 -0400]:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> George wrote on [Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:56:25 -0400]:
>>>> Carl wrote:
>>>>> D wrote:
>>>> Since you mentioned my name please *explicitly* quote in detail where I
>>>> even said anything like that.
>>>>
>>>> And let me ask you have you ever questioned a fee or negotiated a price
>>>> at any time. If so why did you do it?
>>> The time to question a fee is BEFORE you agree to it.
>> What I am surprised at is how compliant people have become to whatever a
>> megacorp tells them to do. Protest and negotiation are time honored
>> traditions that should be part of our DNA as US citizens.
>
> No megacorp tells me I need a cell phone on a certain contract, that's
> the power I have. If I don't agree to the contract I am free to not sign
> up. It's not hard.


OK, but what does that have to do with my point? Please reread what I
wrote and *quote* where I said that.

>> If I am dealing with a car dealer, contractor etc I can call them on
>> something I think might be onerous or unfair and we can negotiate. When
>> I am dealing with a megacorp and I find something unfair I can't do
>> that.
>
> Why not?

Is this a trick question?

>
>
>> I am completely certain that the basis for all of the current protests
>> against rigid ETFs is not people trying to run away from something but a
>> formal protest to cause a restructuring of the implementation.
>
> Oh bullshit, people signed contracts and now want to weasel out of them
> because they didn't read or understand the consequences.

Actually I don't think so.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 08 Aug 2008 14:55:20 -0400 Carl wrote:
>
>> Sorry Todd. In this case I agree with your father in law's tactic
>> (though I don't agree that "blustering" is a good strategy). The
>> ONLY way to effectively shop for a car, imho, is to get ALL the fees
>> wrapped into one, comprehensive price. It doesn't matter that you
>> know that there are other fees hidden in there somewhere. Of course
>> they are. But, when you go to the next dealership and employ the
>> same strategy, you'll be comparing apples to apples and not, as so
>> many do, apples to oranges. The number and type of "fees" a dealer
>> can play with serve no purpose to the consumer but to confound and
>> confuse them. The only thing that matters is the bottom-line price,
>> and that's ALL you should be looking at. You will be a better car
>> shopper if you employ your father in law's strategy and eliminate
>> the dealer's smokescreen material.
>
>
> I agree with you- however, in my experience, the fees typically
> reappear when it's time to sign, due to the ridiculous "departments"
> you are shuffled between at many dealerships. I negotiate a firm
> price with the salesperson, get a verbal assurance that this is the
> "final" price, then when the sales contract appears in the finance
> manager's office (who you're forced to see whether you want financing
> or not!), the "documentation fees", "dealer prep", etc. all are
> there, with dumbfounded managers acting surprised that I would try to
> stiff them out of these perfectly legitimate and necessary fees.
> That's when I get mad and threaten to walk, because I truly hate the
> charade of car buying.
>
> The last dealership I bought from, earlier this year, actually has the
> audacity to add a "dealer sticker" to EVERY car on the lot adding
> $1300 worth of "undercoating" and $500 of "theft-deterring
> micro-dots" to every car, apparently hoping that when they allow you
> to negotiate down the added $1800 to MSRP, you think you've gotten a
> deal! (They also have a $350 documentation fee!)
>
Yep, I have seen these practices in operation and deplore them too. I am
fortunate enough to have moved into the "luxury car" class, most of which
dealers don't engage in those practices.

At 10 Aug 2008 19:23:04 -0400 Carl wrote:


> > The last dealership I bought from, earlier this year, actually has the
> > audacity to add a "dealer sticker" to EVERY car on the lot adding
> > $1300 worth of "undercoating" and $500 of "theft-deterring
> > micro-dots" to every car, apparently hoping that when they allow you
> > to negotiate down the added $1800 to MSRP, you think you've gotten a
> > deal! (They also have a $350 documentation fee!)
> >
> Yep, I have seen these practices in operation and deplore them too. I am
> fortunate enough to have moved into the "luxury car" class, most of which
> dealers don't engage in those practices.

That's good to know. I've never enjoyed car ownership (or even driving,
frankly) to spend any real money on automobiles. For me they've always
been just utilitarian tools to get my fat butt from point A to point B.


Even as a teen, when all of my friends were driving "muscle cars" I was
driving cheap Datsuns, AMC Gremlins, or VW Beetles to get decent gas
mileage and cheap junk yard parts! ;-)