1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ETF and New Agreement..Time to Fight Back

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by rubocop, May 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    4
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    Yes they did but those slight changes were materially adverse, increases in fees or discount changes, etc.....something that increased the cost to the cell phone user. What is the material changes with this change by Directv???
     
  2. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    While I disagree with the OP's premise, I think his damages are the ETF. It may just hold up in small claims...maybe. :grin:

    Mike
     
  3. Jive Turkey

    Jive Turkey Legend

    104
    0
    Sep 5, 2011
    Exactly why I don't believe he has talked to a lawyer about this.
     
  4. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    4
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    What would be his damages though in regards to the changes by Directv that caused him to not agree with the new T&C.
     
  5. dcandmc

    dcandmc Legend

    318
    9
    Sep 24, 2008
    Exactly; his damages are the amount of the ETF.
     
  6. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    4
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    That's a result of him not agreeing to the changes....what are the damages caused by the actual changes that are causing him to not agree to the changes in the first place???
     
  7. dcandmc

    dcandmc Legend

    318
    9
    Sep 24, 2008
    He doesn't need to show damages to not agree with new terms and conditions. DirecTV's Customer Agreement specifically says that if a subscriber doesn't accept new terms and conditions (no reason needed), they can so inform DirecTV, which then "may" initiate cancellation. If that's all there is to it, no damages, no basis for a law suit, end of story.
     
  8. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    There don't seem to be any but IIUC, the premise is that the OP is inappropriately charged the ETF and is the basis for suing...I think. :scratchin

    Mike
     
  9. spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,566
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Incorrect.

    People have gotten out of cell phone contracts when there was a materially adverse change (i.e. text message rates increased, etc.), NOT for wording changes.
     
  10. bixler

    bixler Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    4
    Oct 14, 2008
    PA
    So when he walks into court and the judge says, sir what are the damages that Directv has caused by changing their T&C's that has in turn caused you to not agree to said changes in the T&C's and the OP says there aren't any.....you mean to tell me the judge is going to continue with the hearing? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    If I was that judge I'd laugh my ass off

    I mean if Directv increased his bill 1 penny I would see the OP's side/case.....but NOT in this instance. He's looking for a free meal ticket out of ETF and it has NOTHING to do with the T&C changes.
     
  11. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    One of the few things I agree with is the fact that the Customer Agreement doesn't put any conditions on choosing to not accept the changes.

    One could argue that the why is irrelevant and only the result of that decision is at issue.

    Mike
     
  12. bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    Everyone *is* doing it...well all the wolves are anyway. :D

    Besides, I read the fine print before signing, then they changed it a year later. That's what this is all about. If you do nothing, you're basically signing a brand new contract. Have you read the entire new TOS? Do you read every new TOS agreement from D* or your credit card company or your cellular provider each and every time you are notified?

    Just to be clear--you're not canceling. They are. If you want to maintain service, but they refuse to continue to offer it, why should you pay the ETF for failure to maintain service?

    The same argument is made if you've moved to a house or apartment without a Line of Sight. D* is now failing to provide service to you, they are failing to hold up their end of the contract, so they cancel your service and don't charge the ETF.
     
  13. MarkG21

    MarkG21 AllStar

    73
    0
    Jan 3, 2010
    Not a lawyer here and I very well may be wrong,


    The way I interpret on contract law,

    One party can make changes to the contract at will without a breach of contract if it is immaterial and with proper notice. What is material and immaterial is subjective, and that is what you'll be fighting in court/arbitration for. If it is immaterial, then you should be bound to your contract or ETF whereas if material, you should have a right to not accept and no ETF.

    You still have to acknowledge acceptance for immaterial and failure to do so is a breach on you and subject to ETF.

    I think in this case, it is generally accepted that the T&C is very immaterial and nothing adverse.
     
  14. dcandmc

    dcandmc Legend

    318
    9
    Sep 24, 2008
    The judge wouldn't question why he has chosen to not accept the new terms and conditions, because that's not what the case would be about. The Customer Agreement makes it perfectly clear that DirecTV has the right to change terms and conditions whenever it wants for whatever reason, and the customer has the right to refuse to accept the new terms and conditions, for whatever reason. The refusal or acceptance of new terms and conditions is not the issue; what is at issue is the conduct of the parties after DirecTV was notified that new terms and conditions are not acceptable.
     
  15. gaperrine

    gaperrine AllStar

    105
    7
    Dec 7, 2002
    Dexter MI
    DirecTV says that they need all customers under the same agreement because they "cannot offer Service to different customers on different terms". Yet they allow customers to remain in grandfathered packages. Why not grandfathered TOS agreements?
    Will their next email be to grandfathered package customers telling them to accept a new package or be cancelled?
     
  16. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,341
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    You're not signing a new contact, but agreeing to the TOS. Bug difference.
     
  17. dcandmc

    dcandmc Legend

    318
    9
    Sep 24, 2008
    No, a subscriber has the right to refuse any new terms and conditions, even when the changes are immaterial. The Customer Agreement sets no conditions on a subscriber's right to refuse.
     
  18. acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    I'm pretty sure by accepting the TOS you are also accepting changes in terms if you choose to accept but should notify you just like credit card companies do and if you don't agree they(Directv) can cancel service and abide by your remaining lease agreement(Contract) so it's better to read the TOS (at least the important part) before accepting anything like I said before.
     
  19. MarkG21

    MarkG21 AllStar

    73
    0
    Jan 3, 2010
    Yes, a subscriber has a right to not accept. Anybody and everybody has the right to break any contract. But doing so, the non breaching party has the right to go for damages (in DirecTVs case, the ETF fee, if applicable).

    You have to accept the TOS inn order to get DirecTV service.

    In the case of an immaterial change, your still bound by your commitment if you have one. By refusing, you will be the breaching party.


    If it is a material change, Then DirecTV is the breaching party.
     
  20. CCarncross

    CCarncross Hall Of Fame

    7,058
    60
    Jul 19, 2005
    Jackson
    And the OP accomplished everything he wanted here, to stir a pot that doesnt have anything in it. You notice he hasnt returned? All 12 of his posts have been nothing but rants and negativity.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page