dl0711
join:2004-06-27
London, ON | reply to insomx
Re: Rogers took my payment that has my own EUA
Oh i will sue. i have a friend that is a lawyer and my Uncle is also a lawyer so i don't have to pay anything to sue them. I like knowing people who are lawyers. |
|
nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Ahh the American Dream. Too bad that Rogers would have so many lawyers and so much paperwork thrown down their throats that your friend and Uncle lawyer would wish that they hadn't taken this on  .
Also something tells me that something written on the back of a cheque doesn't really qualify as an "End User License Agreement".
Also, since your not the service provider, I'm not sure what service Rogers is buying from you? There seems to be a small flaw in the argument. |
|
dl0711
join:2004-06-27
London, ON
| quote:
Rogers is buying from you.
1.) Contract with Building
2.) The service I provide is me being a Customer to them. They provide me the service and the service I provide to them is paying for the services that they provide me.
quote:
something written on the back of a cheque doesn't really qualify as an "End User License Agreement"
Yes it does. Why does u say that it doesn’t?
Also Rogers can try and Bring there lawyers my uncle works as a lawyer for the Canadian Gov. and my friend lawyer works as a lawyer for Microsoft.
And remember Microsoft is teamed up with Bell so most likely is there is any cost LOL bell would help pay to see this stand up in the Courts. |
|
darrylr
join:2003-02-10
Nepean, ON | LOL!
-Darryl |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| reply to dl0711
Putting conditions onto a cheque as conditions for cashing no longer holds up in a court unless the payee has been informed of the conditions by letter and has acknowledged the terms.
I think you need to learn a bit more about contract law. You are exchanging legal tender for goods or services, therefore you are the service user, and they are the service provider. Their business is not purchasing legal tender in exchange for providing internet service; it is providing internet service in exchange for legal tender.
Therefore Rogers have us pretty well wrapped up. Since internet service has NOT been defined as an essential service, they are under absolutely no obligation to provide you with service. Now while there are clauses in which you supposedly give up legal rights, courts do take a dim view of such clauses, their right to terminate your service with notice for any reason they choose is not such a clause. It's likely that if you attempt to enforce your EUA, through the courts, they will simply terminate your service as is their right.
Remember that empires the size of Rogers don't just employ lawyers, they have their own staff legal departments and they don't hesitate to use them, if only to wrap up their opponents in costly pretrial wranglings ... to the point where the cost would far exceed your pockets or your pro bono lawyer friends.
Remember that your lawyer friend working for Bell is in no position to challenge the EUA, because you'll find that most ISPs have astoundingly similar EUAs, and therefore, to shoot down Rogers EUA will be shooting down Bell's EUA. Not likely.
-------
I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV. This is a personal analysis for discussion only. It is not a legal opinion and should not be used in place of retaining legal counsel. |
|
nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON | Couldn't have said it any better myself sbrook . |
|
