Did SBC wrongly asseses PENALTY FEES!

Re: Did SBC wrongly asseses PENALTY FEES!


SBC may not be able to provide you service but they didn't force you to sign the agreement to begin with, they didn't force you to move and they didn't have any say in where you chose to move to. You entered a legal agreement and you opted to break that agreement knowing what the penalties would be. (You could have continued paying the remaining 2 months on the account and then canx'd afterwards and avoided the penalty...)

From a legal viewpoint (based on what you've provided) it looks like their claim is entirely valid. (I'm not a lawyer so you can take that with a grain of salt. ) If I were you I'd pay the bill.

Unless you where forced to move, I don't think so. It might of said it in or contract, ALWAYS READ SMALL PRINT! Maybe, possibly there is a "follow up." Did you give them at least a month's notice?

Yes I did..
...give them a month's notice.

Wen the subject came up (of being two months short on my 12-month contract), I suggested that I simply pay the basic service for two months worth.

But to no avail.

I was forced to move because of my job.

In my mind, the issue is service. If they were not able to provide me with service, then who ended the contract? SBC or me?

Here's an example:

I once went to my banks ATM machine, and it was out of cash. So, I went to a location near by and got cash, using my bank card.

The bank charged me a service fee for using a different ATM machine.

The next day, I called the bank, and told them that "...your ATM machine was unable to provide me with cash, for it was empty. Therefore, I went somewhere else...".

My bank (BofA) AGREED! And they credited me for the other ATM fees (after checking their records to find that, indeed, that particular machine had run out of cash).

And that's my point. If SBC was unable to SERVICE ME, than the problem is theirs, not mine. I was willing to continue with them.

If you went to a country/state that your bank doesn't have an ATM in would you expect them to waive the fees for every transaction you make using some other bank's ATM machine?

There's a significant difference between having the service in place and it being temporarily unavailable and not having the service available at all.

SBC was fully able to service you with the exact same service that was available when you signed the contract.

YOU are the one wanting to change the terms of the contract here - not SBC. SBC isn't in any way obligated to build out an ISP service in an area you move to to continue providing you with the service.

If you hadn't said anything to SBC and just continued paying the bill for 2 more months they would have been none the wiser and then you could have cancelled the service with no penalty.

Okay.....I guess so. What your saying DOES make sense. It just sucks is all ... I'll just pay it and be done with it then.

They always find a way to stick you in the ass.

Hmm, I'm in N. Cal and have SBC, but I suppose they don't cover all of it.

On a related matter, sort of, SBC Yahoo is advertising dsl in my area right now, at a good rate for a year. The ad is in the local newspaper. My business partner's husband called the number provided and asked about it, and the person at SBC Yahoo said they don't provide dsl in this area. Husband argued by saying he knew several people that have it and that it is advertised in the recent local paper. No sirree, no service here. Hmm, I have sbcyahoo dsl and I live 8 blocks from them. Must be quite a specialized delivery system!!!! (I have no doubt that particular sbcyahoo person is wrong; the person was based in Riverside, the length of the state away, and must have been confused. Adamantly confused. This is a small town, and we both live in the heart of it.)

Most states provide a legal protection whereby a contract can be negated in the face of uncontrollable circumstances. Most states also recognize moving at the behest of one's employer as an uncontrollable circumstance. I would check with your local legal aide society, get a copy of the law regarding this matter, and get in contact with SBC's billing people and hash it out.

For instance, here in Texas, I can sign a five year lease, but if my employer requires me to move (as part of an occupational relocation) then my leaseholder has to release me from the lease without penalty or prejudice. Likewise, my phone and utility services must also release me - regardless of whether they actually serve my new area or not.

Remember, they are not in the business of being understanding, but of making money. They will not necessarily break the law, but they will most likely have to have that law pointed out to them when it is detrimental to their bottom line..

Really?? Where exactly is that in Texas law? It's not mentioned anywhere in Title 8 (Property: Landlord/Tenant) or in Title 15 (Texas Fair Housing Act) and none of the on-line tenant advisory groups seem to know anything about it.

http://www.texastenant.org/topics/terminate/terminategetting.html

I don't know of anystate that allows you to break a contract without retaining liability just because you decide to move - whether it's at the employers request or not.

That's the point ... if your employer relocates you, it's not really your decision. Yes, in the altruistic sense, everything you do is your decision, and yes, you could choose to simply quit and find new employment, but really, now.

As to where in the legal code, I'd have to find it. I've never had to use it personally, but my attorney tells me that this is indeed the case. I almost had to do it last year, and looked into it. Though I know it is there, I do not recall exactly where. Hell, I'm not sure I ever personally read it. That's why I have an attorney.

Most states have similar provisions for employment relocation. It's not a matter of breaking a lease simply because you decide to move, but rather that most states will not enforce lease penalties and obligations if your employer forces relocation.

By the way … your link states clearly: "If a tenant does not have a legal excuse for terminating early, a tenant can be held responsible for the remaining rental payments under the lease. This is the maximum potential liability for premature termination."

This indicates that there are - indeed - legal reasons for early termination, and further indicates that a landlord can not excise penalties beyond completion of the contract. Neither does it discuss specifics, nor does it indicate that there are no reasons to break a lease, but actually - contrary to your assertion - indicates that there are indeed legal reasons for breaking a lease. Also, your link is for a non-profit, independent organization that is not a legal body, or government agency, so their ability to speak clearly on legal matters is limited. It is an advisory - not a judiciary body.

I also said in conjunction with the SBC issue, that "most states provide protections," and that "most states recognize job relocation." I never claimed there was a patent legal code for it, nor did I say it was illegal. Judges are within their discretion to make decisions based on circumstances as much as by what is in a contract, depending on what is in the contract and what prevailing law says. Most judges are also within their rights to enforce verbal contracts over written conract, and to determine what penalties are fair, regardless of contractual obligation. I also suggested contacting the local legal aid society, researching he law, and talking to the contract holder (in this case, SBC). Surely there is nothing wrong with that advice?

Bottom line:

1 - I advocated researching the state's protections, and working with the contract holder
2 - I used lease and utility contracts in Texas as an example. No, I do not know the specific law in question, but my attorney does, and consequently, I know that I am protected in the case of job relocation. It could be that this is in my specific situation, but I find that hard to believe.
3 - Could I be wrong? Sure ... I'm human, an perhaps my understanding is flawed, but this is as it was related to me by my attorney last summer.

However, this is not a debate about Texas law - the original question was about SBC's penalties leveled in the state of California, and I stand by my original assertion: consult legal aid in your area, cite the applicable laws, and hash it out with SBC - anything wrong with that advice? … seeking legal advice and negotiating with SBC?

I've already said that.



I never said everyone gets away with it. I said that in most states, there are protections. I've lived in a number of states (NY, NJ, CT, MD, VA, CA, TX, KS, FL, GA, IL, WA) and worked at a job where moving frequently was a requirement (thus moving into and out of each of those states). That being the case, I've had experience in moving and breaking leases on short notice due to job relocation. I've never been required to pay penalties or satisfy my lease obligation when I've been able to supply evidence of my job-related relocation. Perhaps this is peculiar to my situation. Don't honestly know, but I find it difficult to believe that in 12 states, I've merely gotten lucky.



I've already stated quite clearly that:
1 - I'm not a lawyer
2 - I've consulted my attorney in a similar matter, and his advice and counsel is what I was basing my information on, and
3 - I could well be wrong. That should be enough, but feel free to continue badgering me. I don't mind.
Also, I'll clarify one thing I said earlier. The organization cited above is indeed a good organization, and I would likewise take their advice over that of a lay-person. Didn't mean to imply otherwise in the heat of my reply.



I did. I went to my attorney. Surely, you could agree that an attorney is an authority in legal matters?



Again, this is not the debate - SBC in California, and the troubles there are, so I really don't know why you are beating the topic into the ground.

Oh ... wait ... you're waiting for me to grovel in a corner and apologize extensively for my misstep. Well, never mind. I've already quite clearly stated that I may be wrong on the specifics, and related that my experiences are the example cited. Perhaps I was overzealous in my assertions, but I've already clarified as much as I care to. If I am wrong, so be it, but do not go around brow-beating me and claiming I'm trying to mislead people with bogus legal advice - it's simply not true.

One more time: Seek the advice of your local legal aid society, research the pertinent law, and negotiate with SBC. That is the extent of my legal advice, and it is grounded on solid common sense. Do not go around painting me as some sort of armchair lawyer, because in fact, if you stop, you'll find that we agree on that topic, and that is - in fact - the topic at hand.

I get the impression that you are either looking for an argument, or hoping I'm going to beg your forgiveness. Forget it. I've stated myself clearly, clarified, and admitted that yes indeed - I could well be wrong in some specifics. However, I still maintain that the best thing for "8-Car Fan" to do is to seek the advice of his/her local legal aid society, research the pertinent law, and negotiate with SBC. All else is fluff. My attorney says that my landlord can not enforce a lease on me if my company relocates me, and that is good enough for me. I am not a lawyer, and so take his advice as valid. Unless you are a judge, I will take his advice over yours.

Also, I never … never … advocated people breaking their leases willy-nilly, so don't go jumping up my ass as if I was telling people to shoot their cats. "Misleading comments"? Misleading implies that I intentionally desire a particular course of action. If I am wrong, so be it, but do not insinuate that there was some intentional wrong doing in that.

I am not going to engage in a state-by-state debate on this subject, despite the fact that I am very sure you would love the argument. I was merely offering advice, to whit: Seek the advice of your local legal aid society, research the pertinent law, and negotiate with SBC. That being the case, let all else drop already.

Your venomous and scathing attacks show just the level of resistance to advice as well as your severe dislike of conversation in favor of heated argument. That's not why I came here, and it is not why I offered the advice I did … Seek the advice of your local legal aid society, research the pertinent law, and negotiate with SBC.

If you can not get it through your head that that is the sole piece of advice offered, and that I've already clarified my position (that, yes, I may be wrong, but that my information is grounded on personal, recent events, as opposed to simply pulling them out of my ass) then you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.

In conclusion, my sole advice - as I've stated over and over again - is to seek the advice of your local legal aid society, research the pertinent law, and negotiate with the pertinent contractor. If I am wrong in something, then so be it. I don't mind being corrected or educated, but you certainly do not have to be a scathing asshole in the process.

lmao Ok Dimytri. I guess my "scathing attacks" are just to much. But if you think anything I've said here is "venomous" or "scathing" then you might consider turning that PC of your's off and going back to flower gardening.

But don't confuse anything here for argument or anything else. You made a statement and were questioned on it. Instead of supporting your comment you've resorted to whining.

um ... whatever ... I don't recall uttering a single whine. I was challenged, and I answered with my personal statements, then the challenge was sent forth for a second volley. No one informed me that this was to be a formal debate, or I would have stepped into the fray with more preparation.

I was under the impression that it was a friendly quest for advice. I gave that advice and was handed your derision on a brass plate.

As to flower gardening, I'm sure that was meant as some sort of half-witted attack on masculinity, but hey ... you just keep being an ass. It's working for you.

By the way ... congratulations - you've successfully proven that this forum - unlike most - is populated by those more ready to argument than discuss.

Advice is offered and derision is offered in response. Very well. Have fun.

Good god Dimytri. "Friendly" doesn't mean "never being questioned".

And having your opinion/post questioned is not derision.

If you can't take dissent without resorting to calling people an "ass" you really shouldn't be using the internet. Donning the mantle of civility while showing a lack of concern for civility yourself is transparent.

You might as well just say "please pretend I am always right, I didn't come here to this forum to find out I might sometimes be wrong".