Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I believe any change in a cell phone contract, such as a new fee, allows you to terminate the contract without penalty. Of course 99.9% of customers won't do that, but it is an option.



Then there's the second way they get you. The $300 phone you just bought for Verizon only works on Verizon... :(.


It has to be a material change... this might not constitute one, especially if the contract says Verizon is free to add or remove payment methods or something along those lines.


If the contract doesn't explicitly state you get to use a credit/debit card, then they're not really under any obligation to accept it at all, much less for free. After all, you can always do it the old-fashioned way and mail in a check.


I don't agree with that. When I signed my contract with Verizon, they offered online payments via credit card as a free-of-charge option for payment. By charging for that, they are materially changing the nature of our agreement, regardless of whether it was in the contract.

Take it to the extreme: Since method of payment isn't stipulated at all in the agreement, they could just as easily say "Starting 1/15/2012, any payments not made in person at our payment processing facility in Kodiak, Alaska will be subject to a $100 convenience fee." Would that be ok? At what point does it become not ok?


IANAL, but I would expect the uniform commercial code to cover what payment methods are allowed if not stipulated in a contract. For example, in § 2-511 of the UCC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-511) "Tender of payment is sufficient when made by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business unless the seller demands payment in legal tender and gives any extension of time reasonably necessary to procure it."

I'm not sure if leaving out such a demand in the contract bars them from making one in the future, or if a court would recognize such a right when it is unreasonably burdensome on the part of the consumer, however - or if they would allow the payer to offset their costs incurred in delivering the legal tender to the payee. That said, if anyone knows of case history regarding this, it would be very interesting to read :)


I bet they'll claim in-person payment remaining free will render the change meaningless from a void-contract point of view.


Since the fee is easily avoidable I would guess it's not "material" in that sense.


From the discussion of this on reddit, it seems to depend on whether or not the contract allows for addition or modification of "fees" and others implied that it could vary by state. Of course, IANAL and there were no sources cited anywhere.

I left 10 minutes ago to find the link and got lost, I'm not sure where it went.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: