Re: Definition of Harm
- From: nospam@xxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:51:14 GMT
On 3 Sep 2005, "David Martel" <marte005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Congratulations on your win in court. Since the judge did take the time
>to research your argument did he give an explanation of his ruling? I find
>the notion that you had to get your cell phone turned back on quite odd. Why
>did you need to do that? Since you made the decision to pay this money it
>sounds as if you harmed yourself. Were you damaged by the loss of cell phone
>privileges? Was paying this bill the best way to mitigate these damages?
>Would other phone companies refuse to service you?
The OP explained all this in her original posting about this subject
some time ago.
If I recall correctly, what occurred was basically this:
Her estranged husband, who, like her, had his own (separate from her)
account with Centennial Cellular subscribed on their adult son's
behalf for an account for the son. Centennial then sent all account
information and bills to (and only) in the name of the father who,
however, then reneged. Centennial then tried to look to the OP for
payment even though its representatives had (orally) acknowledged to
her that she had not asked for and had not otherwise directly
participated in the father's order of phone service for the son.
Nonetheless, relying essentially just on the coincidence that she,
too, was (in her own name and for her own separate account) a
Centennial customer, Celestial it just unilaterally changed the
account information that the father and son had initiated, solely in
the son's and father's name, to her name then charged her account
although there also were not any provisions in the OP-with-Centenial
agreement that even arguably (much less explicitly) authorized its so
doing.
After reasonable/diligent efforts by phone, email, and letters by her
to correct this wrong while, however, she was confronted by continuing
bills belatedly being sent to her, she then opted to pay to avoid
having to litigate what she (undoubtedly: correctly/reasonably)
estimated would be Centennial's effort to seek attorneys fees and
related relief under color of claimed default of her bills but
explicitly "under protest" and "without prejudice" and so alerting
Centennial that one option for it was just not to negotiate those
checks.
Bear in mind, too, that her state has a comparatively substantive
"[no] deceptive business practices" remedial statute, although she
hasn't been sufficiently clear in her postings how/whether she dealt
with what may have been choice-of-law provisions in her own contract
with Centennial. Correlatively, however (insofar as potential
venue/choice-of-law issues may have been concerned), she was not
necessarily suing Centennial under color of her own contract as
distinguished from whether, as she now says, correctly, Centennial had
(at least in effect) engaged in what arguably amounted (among other
wrongs) to identity theft: just unilaterally making her party to
contract in her name she had not in any way ordered whereas the
actual, on only, identify of the actually contracting party was some
combination of her estranged husband or son, then charging her for
that contract (for her son).
.
- References:
- Definition of Harm
- From: Nancy
- Re: Definition of Harm
- From: David Martel
- Definition of Harm
- Prev by Date: Re: Legal Recourse
- Next by Date: Custody Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Definition of Harm
- Next by thread: Re: Definition of Harm
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
