Re: $42.00 cost Verizon 3,000.00 per year-Smart business Veriizon

Jeremy wrote:

"Notan" <notan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Jeremy wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

in this case, the manager who refused the exchange might be a nice
person, but his/her bad decision hurt vzw and vzw stockholders in a
significant way. the loss of a customer is rarely a good thing, but
vzw has always handled that aspect rather high-handedly.

The one piece of information that we do not know is whether Verizon has
instructed their managers not to deviate from the cutoff date, in order
to have to defend themselves from customer complaints that some people
get a
better deal than others. Especially in connection with the 15-day trial
period on new phone service, if they were found to make exceptions, it
jeopardize their ability to hold anyone at all to the 15-day term.

Frequently, opened (vs unopened) merchandise is subject to different


My point was that there might be a bigger picture, in the eyes of Verizon's
legal department. I am reluctant to bash them merely because they declined
to give in to the customer after the return period had expired.

It may be that their corporate policy is to comply with their return periods
to the letter, and not one day more. It might not have been a situation
where a store manager chose to give the customer a hard time. He may have
had no leeway on this point.

In any event, the OP did not have the moral high ground, since he failed to
return the goods timely. To me, this case is a bit of a non-issue.

I guess I'm unclear as to what legal ramifications there might be.

A company creates its own policies and chooses as to whether, or not,
they're enforced.

Would the same policy be enforced with an employee, high up on Verizon's
food chain?