@tande04: thats a fair enough point and i agree that someone with a thirty dollar plan and someone with a 200 dollar plan shouldnt pay the same termination fee, even then it should be based on how far into the contract you are but the simple fact remains that you signed the contract and unless they violate the terms you have no right to break the contract.

stryker1800

@RainyDayInterns: Very good point. Increase phone prices to what they would be without the subsidy, make the whole phone purchase into a credit transaction and tack on finance charges to boot! We've got a winner here. This will turn out GREAT for consumers and carriers alike.

Now consumers will get a phone for the low price of $19.99/month for two years + finance charges + service but they'll have the freedom to take said phone to another carrier and then find out it's not compatible anyway because Verizon is CDMA and AT&T is GSM or T-Mobile uses different frequencies or any other litany of issues.

pantsonfireliarliar

I'm quite curious under what grounds they're illegal. I don't agree with the specific ways that they're enforced (although I'm happier now that they're pro-rated), but I'm not necessarily seeing what about them is completely unreasonable. What's the point of a contract if there's no penalty for terminating it?

California state law prohibits several contractual obligations. In this case, the law prevents contracts from penalizing individuals for terminating contracts other than in ways directly related to the costs of the lost contract. Since these fees usually didn't vary whether they were in regard to a thirty dollar phone or a five hundred dollar one, it's rather clearly covered by the law. In short, in California contracts can't be written to discourage people from leaving said contract due to monetary costs.

Cell phone companies would still be able to provide non-fee penalties for terminating a contract early, like charging more for future phone contracts or not contracting with the individual, in addition to part of the cost of a broken contract (at least until the local socialists informed consumer advocates prohibits that).

gattsuru

"causes"

SinAmos

@SinAmos:

"I type fast, think faster"

#1. some of us are working.
#2. do you even get the implication of the juxtaposition of the word 'principles' with 'principals'? you spelled it right if you were referring to moral fiber. so what misspelling do you refer to? the suggestion that you actually had 'principals' insinuates current attendance at a junior high school. But like the difference between being rational and rationalizing, it went right over your head.

nutbastard

@valthun: Thank you for your much more sensible argument. The same reason T-mobile charges me for text messages I don't want or need. The monopolies that aren't supposed to exist in our economy, yet they do, and enforce restrictive measures that control competition, their consumers, and "free markets." How much control do you think the phone companies have on the laws that govern them? An exorbitant amount of power. Don't live in the umbrella of acceptance. You are not in control of anything, but I do appreciate your take. Oh, and leasing is a joke. So is rent, but you are born to accept it. Does land ownership work in a civilized world? By the point of a gun and tooth and nail. Violence sums up everything that is wrong with the world and country. Every law is an attack on your being and natural flow. It all causea you harm without you realizing it.

SinAmos

@SinAmos:

does your common sense tell you that, because you don't want to pay the extra money for phone, that you should put aside your initial qualms about signing a contract? because that's clearly what you've done if you have signed a contract. the bottom line is that the phone company provided you with an option: either a) sign a contract, receive a phone at a cheaper rate, have a few months of free service, and maybe another freebie, or (b) pay more for a phone, but at the same time be free of a contract.
i dont understand why cheapskates like yourself are sitting here complaining that you have to pay a cancellation fee because your childish impulsivity lead you to make a stupid and uninformed choice. you know prior to entering the contract that you have to stick with it for a few years, and you know that at one point or another people have made complaints about having to stick with a phone company for a few years. yet you chose to still go with the phone company for a few years, just because your "gimme now" attitude got in the way. what you shouldve done was worked for a few extra weeks, saved up the money to buy the phone outright, and perhaps even money for the extra amount you'd have paid for the plan, and then made your purchase. and don't even try and feed me the bullshit that you can afford the phone and thats not what this is about, because clearly you cant if you're complaining about having to pay some early cancellation fees.
thats enough of this argument, i foresee you making some childish comment with no merit whatsoever in an attempt to cover up your stupidity.

dee_ess_dee_1

@GeekyNerdGuy: You didn't have to add her... Of course you could have also covered her car in bologna and squeezed mayo in her gas tank. But that is just me.

Carmen Sucks

Penalty clauses are generally unenforceable. Unless you're a huge industry with an army of lobbyists that can afford to enact an exemption.

This ruling will last about 2 weeks before a federal court rules that telecommunications are regulated by the federal government and/or that cell-phone contracts are interstate commerce and that California does not have the authority to invalidate ETFs.

It's a temporary victory at best and a phyrric victory at worst.

OMG! Ponies!

Personally, I don't think you should be required to pay the termination fees if your whore of an ex girlfriend begged you into adding her to the family plan to save money, but then moves out and takes off with some douche she met at a party.

I hope AT&T has to reimburse me for that.

GeekyNerdGuy

@stryker1800: Actually that's pretty much the reasoning for the ruling. It was an appeal in and of its self and the jury said the same thing in the original trial. You signed the contract; you have the live with the consequences. The judge threw it out because basically ETFs aren't fair.

In their current form (especial since sprint doesn't pro-rate) they aren't based on anything. Part of it is supposed to be to offset the cost of the subsidized phone but its not based on it in any way. I get $50 off the bottom of the line phone or $100+ off the top of the line and I still have to pay the same ETF if I cancel. ETFs are also about just lost revenue, they would of made more had you fulfilled your contract but even then there is no basis for the amount. I could have a $200 dollar a month contract and cancel 1 month in and pay the same as some one with a $30 contract who cancels 3 days before their contract is up and we both pay the same amount.

That's why the judge ruled this way. It needs to be based on something concrete that takes in to account the amount of the contract that has been fulfilled. Whether it's in terms of time or money.

tande04

@SinAmos: He isn't stuck on the misspelling, he probably can't get over the fact that you basically called him stupid and here you are being imperfect. You look like a hypocrite.

Carmen Sucks

@SinAmos:

"Is law just or just the perverted logic of one group over another?"

Law is just when it protects people from violating eachothers rights. Law is unjust when it seeks to control the righteous, subsidize the ignorant, and protect the criminal.

nutbastard

@SinAmos: You've just spoken against yourself. Is your contract forced against you? Nope. T-Mobile does flex pay where you don't have to sign a contract, same with Prepaid carriers in every major company. Even Metro PCS if you are in the right areas. You don't have to sign, but when you sign it is a sign that you have READ the entire contract and have AGREED TO THEIR TERMS. IF you DON'T AGREE YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIGN. End of story. Some people are so deep in their own shit they think doesn't stink they fail to see how impractical they are being.

Carmen Sucks

@SinAmos: so now youre taking on the "holy than thou" stance, thats mature

stryker1800

@nutbastard: I type fast, think faster, yet you are stuck on the misspelling of a single word. Hence, you can't make the logical leap of correcting it in your mind. Your logic is FLAWED. Now any authority you had is lost.

SinAmos

@SinAmos: here's the thing. Whether or not you agree with the fees or not, there is a reason they are there. Specifically the cell phone companies get you the phone for pretty big discounts and to ensure they get their money from you they keep you in a contract.

That all being said the recent change to pro-rate the fees as your contract winds down is a good thing.

If you do not purchase a phone and choose to start a new contract with the company you should not be held at all to an ETF, or least ways a much smaller one for the fact that you sign a contract that guarantees a certain service fee. The material adverse claim is where its crap. The contract states how much you are paying a month, that amount should never increase while in my contract and if it does should make the contract null and void. However they somehow get us to keep paying for the new fees whenever they chose to increase them.

By stating that ETFs are illegal that would also mean that any other contract that states there is a fee for stopping it is also illegal. Think leases for apartments that state you will pay a fee is you break the lease. This will be appealed and I don't think anyone will receive any money back from this ruling.

valthun

few people truly enjoy reading those contracts but when you are raised by a lawyer, it sort of becomes habit. you'd think most people would just read and abide by them out of pure responsibility if they are going to sign on the dotted line. i may be wrong

awperk

@SinAmos:

this from a guy who's openly admitting his word is meaningless.

principles? are you sure you didn't mean "principals"?

nutbastard

@Carmen Sucks: Is capitalism forced on you? Is consumerism forced on you? How well does one operate by not accepting the norms of any given society? Is law just or just the perverted logic of one group over another? You tell me? It's so simple to live in a world of finite answers. Rationales are so easily consumed and reciprocated on the internet, so I point out the flaws as I prognosticate.

SinAmos

@SinAmos: Principals? You signed for something, and you wanna bitch when the contract YOU signed works not in your favor. Typical ignorant jerk off who feels he's entitled to the entire world without any repercussions for his stupid ass actions.

Carmen Sucks

@nutbastard:"Morals"? I have common sense and principles that usurp any morals you cling to, but thanks for letting me reminisce to the days of being 8 years old when I was still wiser than you.

SinAmos

It depends how much more expensive phones get, because the ability to switch carriers may make things better for everyone in the long run... or maybe worse, who knows.

karmaghost

For starters, it won't change much about the 49 saner states. Given that this decision came out of a preliminary hearing, there's also a lot of potential for an appeal.

It is correct under state law, which prohibits any termination fees intended only to prevent people from backing out of a contract (thank you, People's Republic of Californistan). That said, federal law covers these sorts of contracts pretty clearly, and I think it already preempts a lot of state regulation such as this. It almost certainly will do so soon, rather than the feds letting San Fransciscans try to run things.

gattsuru

@SinAmos: So wait you should be able to do what you when you want and anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? The only ignorance I see is coming from you. Contracts are not forced onto anyone. You are not born so you can sign for shit, no one needs to sign a contract. If you don't like it, DON'T SIGN IT!!!! It's that simple.

Carmen Sucks

Well...I guess we'll get to see the real cost of owning a cellphone. The ETF is really so you can't pay $0 for a phone and then switch contracts.

All the carriers need to do is to let customers finance a phone for 2 years...which is what's happening now, but just hidden into the monthly cost.

RainyDayInterns

@nutbastard: Yeah, but the point is, I commented your ignorant line before you had the chance to say it, hence, the irony. Predictable individuals are collective response via their environment. "Monkey see, monkey do." Consensus by conceding wisdom. Think faster.

SinAmos

@SinAmos:

You've got the morals of a spoiled 8 year old.

nutbastard

"Whether Sabraw's ruling will stand isn't clear. Experts say an appeal is likely, and the Federal Communications Commission is considering imposing a rule - backed by the wireless industry - which might decree that only federal authorities can regulate early termination fees.

Sprint Nextel also argued in the lawsuit that such fees - which ranged from $150 to $200 - were outside the purview of California law. But Sabraw rejected that argument."

"At a public hearing last month, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin sketched out a plan in which cancellation fees would be reduced over the life of the cell phone contract. Three companies - T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon Wireless - already do that, and Sprint said it would begin prorating its fees next year."

so were good sprint didnt lower there fees thats why there the only ones getting sued wee!

jatt510

CONTRACTS - a thousand pages of fine print. Tell me why that is even legal. Maybe we should create a new law, called the ten line rule. Contracts can only be ten lines long.

SinAmos

@SinAmos:

Damn, if i had updated the comments, i could have thrown an @SinAmos at the top of the last one.

So you should only have to abide by a contract if you like it, and the minute you don't, poof it should go away?

nutbastard

@SinAmos: i didnt say the terms were fair or not but its your own fault if you put yourself into a contract that you dont completely understand. and besides the contract you sign is how you get your cellphones cheaper than what they should cost without the contract.

stryker1800

@nutbastard: Wow, I predicted your refrain before you even spouted off. Damn, human's are ignorant, repetitive automatons.

SinAmos

@Drizzten: In today's world of ever increasing contracts tacked onto anything and everything, I wholeheartedly recommend you shove your principles up your habeus corpus.

Toshie

@stryker1800: Then you are foolish.

SinAmos

This is such bullshit - Right up there with the sub-prime loan happenings.

PEOPLE: You are adults. Read what you sign, and if you don't like it, don't sign it. If you signed it anyways, tough shit.

Consenting, sane, adult citizens of the USA should be able to take part in any contract (that does not violate basic human rights), and those contracts should be enforced by law.

All you whiny sub prime borrowers, ETF fee dodgers, and frivolous litigators are selling your integrity and quite possibly your very souls with your "gimme gimme gimme, now now now, oh no no no, i don't wanna!" attitudes. Not to mention that you're all idiots.

nutbastard

@Drizzten: Yeah, because you should he held to bullsh%t because you need a mobile device to function at a higher level in the business world. Get a life, man. Commonsense tells you that early termination fees are a joke. Just because someone puts in a contract that you need to lick their nuts or you can't buy something from them seems completely "fair". Sarcasm for the ignorantly controlled freaks that like tyrannical practices. Their refrain, "If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it." Hmmmm, so my experience should be limited because of bullsh&t clauses. I think not.

SinAmos

time to buy an iPhone.

jkr2

aww dose this mean i cant get the 3g iphone for 200?

jatt510

i agree with most of the above commenters, its a contract and if youre too ignorant or negligent to read the terms of the contract, you should not be excused from the terms, just like ignorance of the law is not a reason to not go to jail.

stryker1800

Sounds like the end of contracts period...

BaseVilliN

I'm quite curious under what grounds they're illegal. I don't agree with the specific ways that they're enforced (although I'm happier now that they're pro-rated), but I'm not necessarily seeing what about them is completely unreasonable. What's the point of a contract if there's no penalty for terminating it?

TurboFool

Well.... I guess this can be both good and bad... don't really know how to feel about it until I get to know about the possible repercussions.

dambo29

I saw the language in my ATT contract before I signed it. So should anyone else who has any notion of responsibility for the things they sign.

The particular vulgarities of Cali state law aside, I disagree with the court on this one on general principles.

Drizzten

@nutbastard: Thats why were trying to get rid of the consumer herding with etf charges. so we don't have to lie, cheat and steal. Since you like ETF's so much. I have a deal for you... Ill get back to you with a juicy contract with some nice "bonuses" at the end.

aeroworks

THEY DON'T ALWAYS SUBSIDIZE A PHONE. What about those who bought the original Iphone for $600 only to find out it cost $200 to make? I think there are times a phone is subsidized and other times they mark up the phone well above cost and then offer it "at a discount" with contract. There ought to be some disclosure as to the true cost of the phone if they offer that they are charging a $200 termination fee because of subsidizing it - especially when some of the phones aren't even worth half of that. And a $35 activation fee?!?!??!? It costs at most $5 of time to pay the person who activates the phone. They get you twice. I wouldn't go so far as to start feeling sorry for the phone companies as some of you are doing. This will make for better disclosures. If it rids of contracts - so be it. I don't know why everyone is so afraid of purchasing a phone - paying what it's worth in the market - and paying for your phone service separately. China has been doing this for years. I've preferred to stay month to month and just get my phones on EBAY. They're about the same price (new) as a "subsidized" phone anyway.

jdaciuk

@nutbastard: "Integrity." I have sight beyond sight. All around me are weaker adversaries without core values and mutated principles that conveniently work to give them more leverage, so that everyone cheats everyone. Value is stolen left and right and you defend that because? The natural law that has nothing to do with the arrogance and presumption of man's law accepts this virtue. The uncertainty and chaos of the world man seeks to tame by civilized means, yet at every turn he works to manipulate which that is supposed to turn the carnality into serenity. A paradox. He defeats his own structure to pursue the animal urges of dominance and pacification. We are an organized pack of sadistic masochistic fiends. Admit it and walk away now.

SinAmos

@bpapa9013:

DO NOT LUMP THAT MISERABLE NIHILIST IN WITH LIBERTARIANS.

nutbastard

@OMG! Ponies!:

If you 'sell' me something and i don't pay you for it when i said i would, that is lying and stealing.

The disconnect you and i have is due to the perversion of the word "morality", ie. prostitution is considered to be immoral by current public opinion.

Don't put public opinion into morality, I say.

nutbastard

@SinAmos: HAHAHAHAHA, I love libertarian/anarchist wack-nuts...

Not that I don't agree with some of those concepts, but the people who openly and argumentatively take it to the extreme. Who so often feel compelled to attempt hyper-intellectualism in their explanations and rhetoric in instances where it is completely unnecessary. It is especially funny when it is obvious that they are trying SOOOO HARD, and yet everyone thinks they are a joke...

SinAmos needs some bong rips...

bpapa9013

@SinAmos: You sleep with a thesaurus?

aeroworks

Reading time, kids.

"Sprint did no damage analysis that considered the lost revenue from contracts, the avoidable costs and Sprint's expected lost profits from contract terminations."

Sounds to me like the "damages" covered by the ETF were speculative, meaning that the ETF is a penalty clause, not liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are permissible; penalty clauses are not.

OMG! Ponies!

It's a strange world we live in when there are people (presumably over the age of 10) who believe they should just be able to walk away from a contract whenever they feel like it.

I live a lifestyle that puts me in different locations around the world -- sometimes for extended periods of time. I've never had a phone contract in my life. When new technology comes along that I want, I buy a new GSM phone and insert the appropriate sim card for wherever I happen to be.

Believe it or not, in my home town, the best signal available is from ATT, but I can't think of many other places in the US where I'd want to be stuck on the ATT network. For continuity of phone number, I have a skype-in number that costs a whopping $5/month and takes less than a minute on the web to forward to whatever card I happen to be using, and that's the number printed on my business cards.

As for all you dweebs contending that contracts are for tearing up, remind me never to do business with you! May you grow up to be in business for yourself and have lots and lots of clients who think contracts are meaningless.

stubear

@SinAmos: Well they're not economically competitive because the provider doesn't have the guarantee of two years of your business. They can only offer the lower rates if they can guarantee they'll have the customers long enough that it's still profitable to set up the accounts, etc.

Hence the need for contracts in the first place.

GeekyNerdGuy

@forty4:Pro-rated sounds good to me. Some phones with discounts have a difference of more than 200 dollars so doing the whole difference of the discount is just useless. The longer you are with the company the less you should pay. End of story, I'm gonna finish mah puddin.

Carmen Sucks

@SinAmos:

"I love humanity and wish only love upon them, but they disappoint me so often."

Ah, so we agree on SOMETHING.
The difference is you battle the circumstances by compromising your integrity, instead of enduring the circumstances by virtue of your integrity.

What happened, did someone once tell you life should be fair? If so, did they forget to mention that the one valid pipe such a dream hoists itself up on is that life should be fair for those who are not you, as well?

nutbastard

@nutbastard: At this point, I believe you are pulling points from an upside down magician hat without an end in sight. I point this out because pointless preconceptions preamble the inevitability of your predictable powerlessness under my predominant preclusion.

SinAmos

This is great news. I had Sprint once and they tried to stick me with the cancellation fee even though they weren't providing me with stable reception in a designated service area. Contracts run both ways.

icerink

@nutbastard: Don't put morality into contract law.

Contract law exists outside of morality. It's not lying; it's not stealing. It's about monetary position only.

OMG! Ponies!

@SinAmos: I sell cell phones for at&t sprint and t-mobile and the contracts are max three pages. This is including a whole page dedicated to just your rate plan. In fact, handwritten contracts are only one page.

You actually have the option to go month to month on tmobile, but guess what you have to pay full price for the phone. How many people have done this? 0. I just dont understand how people don't realize how much the phones actually cost, even at the wholesale level.

A poster i saw somewhere, i think it was here or consumerist, suggested that the contract etf should be how much you saved on the phone and once you've paid that back(via a standard formula) your contract should go month to month. Another thing that would help is for the companies to subsidize just as much for upgrades as new activations.
This is the biggest complaint, and i do think its founded, loyal customers(read: good paying) should be treated just as good as new customers.

forty4

@SinAmos: Well they probably disappoint you b.c all you do is argue with them.

Carmen Sucks

As to the "read what you sign" arguments:

It's one thing when you voluntarily consent to terms of a contract. But, when everyone in the industry does it, the consent to the term is hardly voluntary. In such a case where there is no viable alternative, the term may be held to be a term of adhesion and be void.

Nut: Penalty clauses are generally not enforced by the courts when the amount of the penalty is unrelated to the damages incurred. This is different from liquidated damages. Ostensibly, the ETF should be related to the subsidy. This, of course, means that iPhone 1.0 should not have an ETF because the phone was not subsidized.

Furthermore, an ETF that is a stick to keep customers is also unrelated to damages and against policy re: contracts.

The courts are about putting parties back to where they stood, not about giving one party a windfall.

OMG! Ponies!

@SinAmos:

"Yeah, because prepaid are economically competitive, right?"

Yes, prepaid IS economically competitive, but only for those who bother to look at the ETFs and various other fees of a contractual cell phone service and actually have qualms about lying and stealing.

That's what breaking a financial contract is - it is lying, and it is stealing.

I'm sure you've got some retarded rationalization about the evils of the corporatocracy and gosh darn it how unfair it all is!

nutbastard

I for one, agree with the ruling. I fully own my cell phone. I paid for it at full MSRP, no special discounts were given or received. But Sprint (nor any other provider) was not going to give me any service unless I committed to 2 years of service. When circumstance changed and I had to move to an area that had no Sprint service, there was no way in hell I was going to pay $200 for a contract that had 4 months left on it.

However, if you were to commit to a contract AND receive a discount on your cell phone, then yes you should be held responsible to fulfill the terms of that contract.

krispykrink

I hate cell phone plans.

I called Verizon once to get some phone pricing for a 2 year contract and then a 1 year contract.

cheapest free phone Free 2 yr contract, 1 year it was 99$
LG Chocolate. 29$ 2 yr contract. 249$ 1 year contract.
Juke. Free 2 year contract. 129$ 1 year contract.

This tells me they will screw you with a 2 year contract, or screw you with a cost of a phone if you only choose a 1 year contract.

I'm getting a iPhone in Feb 09 when my contract is up. At least Ill have a device that somewhat justifies the monthly cost.

Y2KGTP

@Carmen Sucks: I love humanity and wish only love upon them, but they disappoint me so often.

SinAmos

@nutbastard: Are you suggesting the FBI should also investigate cell phone companies? (with your reference to the subprime mortgage crisis)

There was a lot of wrong doing on both sides, some people got greedy & bailed, and some realtor's sold mortgages to people who could never legitimately afford them.

stackedrecords

@WyldeChef: I don't think it makes anyone look like an idiot. Just because we don't have a specific say doesn't mean we don't have an opinion. How boring the world would be if we never had a thought of our own.

Carmen Sucks

@SinAmos:

Let's not go there. I'm from Los Angeles, but we really don't need the fly-over states screaming at us on this forum. I'm begging you.

Citizen Kang

The main reason why cell phones are sooo expensive is the fact that cellular companies want it that way. without expensive phones then what reason do they have tolock you in for so long besides forcing the consumer to only shop with them. hell, the iphone costs about $150 to make. figure a 100% profit on the device is $300. we pay almost that with the subsidized prices.

If we let these companies walk all over us they will. if we don't they will find a way to do business. even if one or 2 companies make prices skyrocket, everyone will leave them for lower (read reasonable) prices. that's the wonderful thing about America. Now if all the cellular companies band together to rape the consumer then ill eat my words..

aeroworks

@SinAmos: You are against everyone aren't you?
Someone is going to die a very sad bitter man.

Carmen Sucks

Contract or not you can not sign away rights proscribed or protected by state law. Thats a period there at the end of that statement.
The majority of you seem to think that the rule of law is somehow suspended once you agree to sign a contract.

Right or wrong fighting it out in giz just makes the lot of oyu look like idiots. The courts will hash this out. The wording of the contracts/offers will change to reflect that.

WyldeChef

@WD40: Can you not attack the US economy because without California, the government wouldn't have all that money to steal and money launder back to your lesser states. Thank you. It is enough that we support the whole country with innovation and everything you take for granted, so do you mind not disrespecting our location.

SinAmos

@nutbastard:

Whatever law school you're the dean of, I'm going to go there. It shouldn't take more than 10...15 minutes tops to finish the curriculum and still get home before the lunch rush hour. I don't have a dog in this race, pro or con, but it'd be sweet to get a morning session law degree when your school gets accredited. Sign me up!!!

Citizen Kang

This is, hands down, the most brilliant news I've heard in a while. I JUST bought the new iPhone and rued the fact that I was required to sign a contract. Now we'll be freeee!!!

@nutbastard: Brilliantly said, Nut.

Gilbert

If you sign to get a discount on a phone while you agree to a 2 year term then you should be charged a fee. (it's only like 2 months payment as opposed to staying on for 2 years)

But at the same time I think that if you already bought a phone full price and wanted out so you didn't have to pay anymore for a shit network you shouldn't have to pay a fee for something you never used more so than your use up to that point.

But contracts don't work that way. So yeah I think getting an awesome phone for cheap on a 2 year contract is out the window.

Overall I think this is actually good, people will buy a phone they can afford and if that network sucks ass they can cancel no question and sell the phone to someone else.

lilaliendog

@gattsuru: That was a comment in passing and not a full figured syllogism for you to grace your eyes upon. It was actually a metaphor that represented the need to be competitive in a capitalistic society. It sums up many points while be ambiguous enough for you to "COPY and PASTE." Write better arguments yourself before jumping in shark infested waters. Hey, let me try one. "There are pre-paid plans that do not involve contracts. Please, go get a real argument somewhere." Yeah, because prepaid are economically competitive, right? Booooo. What kind of argument was that?

SinAmos

@WD40:

For the record, I am from California as well. Ignorance is limited not by race, geography, nor culture.

nutbastard

@SinAmos:

"I'm trying to have a fruitful discussion and you are pinging me with useless blips."

Oh really? You claim to be in possession of some magical loophole of morality that allows you to break promises, but you've yet to justify it.

nutbastard

@gattsuru: The funny thing is, is that you can get out of contracts easily if you are a smooth talker and can be calm and rational in talking with the reps. I've been let out of a Verizon Contract AND a T-Mobile contract free of charge but that is not b.c I was cheap and didn't want to pay. it is because they had been screwing me over for months (T-Mobile) And the Verizon one I had signed a contract when I was 17 and was void :). Funny eh?
But as said I am not forced to sign contracts. T-Mobile has Flex pay with NO contract. Many other companies are getting with this and allowing some sort of opening door for people who don't want to sign contracts.

Carmen Sucks

The linked article says it was an Alameda County Superior Court judge, not the state Supreme Court.

Our state Supreme Court tends to be fairly sane.

Neil Stevens

@SinAmos: You must be from california with your ignorant way of thinking.

Cellphone companies don't make you sign a contract, you do that all on your own. Is it bullshit? maybe so, but in the end it's their product/service that you want and in order for you to use it they have rules you must agree to. If you are a broke POS and can't pay for the cellphone 2 months down the line and you get stuck with an ETF then that was your fault. You can in fact manage your money better and pay for the stupid phone and you will never be charged an ETF. Well that's how I look at it anyways.

WD40

@SinAmos:

"Every law is an attack on your being and natural flow."

No, just the vast majority of them.

We need only one law: Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

Violating a contract that you signed that requires you to compensate the other party is equivalent to 'taking stuff'. I defy you to say we need any more or any less than that one law.

nutbastard

iphones get cheaper?

urbanturban666

@nutbastard: It didn't go over my head as much as I saw right through it "a bit" or "ruse". You tried to derail my argument with pithy banter concerning my rhetoric. I'm trying to have a fruitful discussion and you are pinging me with useless blips.

SinAmos

Yeah, because you should he held to bullsh%t because you need a mobile device to function at a higher level in the business world.

There are pre-paid plans that do not involve contracts. Please, go get a real argument somewhere.

You're nowhere near forced into these contracts, even if you do somehow actually need a phone but can't get one through your employer.

gattsuru

It's amazing how many people say the ruling is good or ill without actually knowing on which grounds the judge declared ETFs illegal. Maybe the judge has a very good legal argument that the telecoms are violating certain laws and have been for a long time. I don't know, but I'm willing to admit I don't rather than running off half-cocked without hearing the legal argument. Maybe he's full of crap and is yet another example of California's liberal judicial slant. Almost everything I've read in the comments so far, with a couple exceptions, have nothing to do with the legal argument. Most of us would excoriate someone for reviewing a movie they hadn't seen, but have no problem passing judgment on a ruling we really know nothing about.

That being said I'm going to take Verizon for a ride if they backdate this a few years.

Citizen Kang

@nutbastard:

To be fair, if one insists on being proud of a country's accomplishments, you should also be ashamed of its sins. You take the good with the bad. To do otherwise suggest a moral buffet where you pick and choose and, in the long-run, it suggests a fair-weather attitude to one's love for a nation, even one as great as ours. Be Nietzsche's superman, take the full moral weight on your shoulders, and be liberated by it.

Citizen Kang

@nutbastard:......lemme get back to you on that... *gets a dictionary*

Whisssper

How easily the weak crumble and embrace tyranny. Pathetic.

SinAmos

@nutbastard: "Sprint shouldn't HAVE to prove damages. However, the damages in this case would be in time, effort and infrastructure that was provided to an individual under contract. If i sell you a flower from my land, and you refuse to pay, and i have more flowers than I could ever sell, are you saying there is no damage occurring?"

Sure they should have to base it off something. The time, effort, and infrastructure they provided cost them something and they are certainly entitled to recoup that cost but it should be based on the actual amount of time, effort, and infrastructure that an individual used, not a flat abritary rate.

Use your flower example. Yes, if you sell me a flower I should pay for it. If I don't you should have recourse to get me to pay for the flower. However are you going to charge me the same as some one you sold 100 flowers to that didn't pay? No, logically you'd want more out of them then me (or anyone else that you sold just one to).

tande04

@SinAmos:

yeah i noticed it and rallied the regulars. i dont get it. why cordfucious?

nutbastard

@SinAmos: your maturity in this all is certainly refreshing and your great sense of humor, im sure, makes everyone in here all warm and tingly inside

Whisssper

92BuickLeSabre on Jul 31, 2008

WTF? I also looked through his comments and didn't see anything. Thanks for the heads up.

ps61318 on Jul 31, 2008

[Cordfucious Banning] This has GOT to be a mistake. I can't find anything in his comments. He must have left an offensive message for someone of "importance." I cannot fathom nor imagine this.

LET THE PETITION DRIVE BEGIN!!!! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE! KNOW JUSTICE, KNOW PEACE!.

Seriously, man, we should do something.

SinAmos

@Whisssper:

I resent the implication that our pontification is farce tantamount to a juvenile urine elimination challenge which is devoid of relevance to opposing debaters regarding antidisestablishmentarianism.

; )

nutbastard

@Whisssper: LOLGIGGLEFARTS!

SinAmos

@dambo29: Kewl. I'm with you, dambo29. I'm finished.

SinAmos

@SinAmos:

My existence grants me right to be here, as does yours you.

Consuming the fruits of the Earth and taking the fruits of another are not at all the same thing.

nutbastard

@nutbastard: and @SinAmos: will you two admit that this whole argument is just a coverup for your pissing contest of who can post using the hardest words to understand

Whisssper

@chasmm: Check it. Are you racist, Chasmm? Ten bucks says you are. @OMG! Ponies!: Boy, this is my mofo country. I'm more patriotic and American than you could every be on more levels than you could understand, so get off your denouncer pulpit and enjoy your spoon-fed existence. If you don't question everything, then you will get caught slippin'. Stop slippin'.

SinAmos

@SinAmos: @nutbastard: @Carmen Sucks: Holy Shit Dudes! RELAX....

dambo29

Are the dish companies next?

JediMasta

@OMG! Ponies!:

"The decision took issue with Sprint's failure to prove damages. Your simplistic view is not supported by the law."

Sprint shouldn't HAVE to prove damages. However, the damages in this case would be in time, effort and infrastructure that was provided to an individual under contract. If i sell you a flower from my land, and you refuse to pay, and i have more flowers than I could ever sell, are you saying there is no damage occurring?

nutbastard

Do you ever wonder why they give so many phones away for free? I will give you a clue. It isn't always about subsidizing. It is about net dollars and contracts. That is where the big juice is. Also the cancellation charges are free money. The subsidizing boohoo is crap. Trust me. Even a judge figured that out.

hardenstuhl

@nutbastard: You inherit all progress that your forefathers made, which contributes to your own success in this system. You STEAL SPACE from this world, and some could argue, precious SPACE that maybe you shouldn't.

SinAmos

@SinAmos: Oh please. Take the god-damned anti-America, anti-Western world, anti-capitalist speechifying elsewhere.

Here's a quarter. Go find some other song on the jukebox to play.

OMG! Ponies!

@SinAmos:

All hail California...for without it, we, the rest of us poor pitiful unimaginative cretins wouldn't be able to bear our existence. Very good, all you've convinced me of is that you're an unethical elitest bigot. You've also reminded me that when anyone puts the word "common" in front of another word, it's anything but common.

@nutbastard:

Thank you. I suspect your ethics at 8-years-old may have been more fully formed than the "common sense and principles" being espoused by others...

chasmm

I'm not sure were i stand on this. On one hand, you aren't forced to sing a contract but when your standing there and they hand you a pen and tell you to sign, how many people REALLY say, hold up, give me an hour to read through all of this. Now i have no experience w/ cell phone contracts so i don't know how much fine print is there to read through, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it isn't clear or straight forward. In our modern society a cell phone is a pretty important object and for some people maybe even a necessity. I find it quite likely that, in order to get certain features they may "need" the only way to get them will be through a contract, that is specifically written to lock them down and milk as much out of them as possible.

Another thing, some people honestly run in to hard time. It does seem ridiculous if say, Johny losses his job due to circumstances well beyond his control thus plummeting his family in to complete poverty. In this situation an ETF is probably the last thing they want to deal w/ but they may have NO choice, what so ever.

Just a thought. When it comes down to it though if you don't have the backbone to demand the time to read your contract before the chump on the other side of the counter makes you sign it, your probably just setting yourself up for a world of hurt.

luciusad2004

@SinAmos:

"You have been stealing your whole life. You live in a system that prays on weaker nations, environments, and resources, and you are part of that system, so indirectly, you've been stealing your whole life. Last time I checked, you were living on stolen land, breathing stolen air."

The sins of my forefathers are not mine.

I do not 'steal' life from animals any more than i 'steal' water from the ground.

nutbastard

@hardenstuhl: Thank you for shining more light on the subject.

SinAmos

@Samifumi:

My argument is that EFTs are legal because people consensually, contractually agree to them. Once the concept of a contract has been eroded by the morons who expect to have their asses wiped when, where and how they please, commerce beyond the barter system becomes impossible.

nutbastard

"preys"

SinAmos

I can't believe that people are so quick to defend the phone companies. I worked for MCI years ago and all the telcos are the biggest opportunists and greedy bastards I have ever seen. I also worked in the scrap industry. Believe me when I tell you the scrap industries are saints compared to the phone companies.

What you are paying is top retail for the phones. You are no where paying even close to the actual cost. Don't be so naive. My markup quite often ran at 300 - 500% for services. The phones were a drop in a bucket. If a phone company can't make money and be profitable why should we have to subsidize them? Shear stupidity. They have you guys so brainwashed it is unreal. Suckers... How is that fios coming still in your neighborhood but not available yet?

hardenstuhl

@nutbastard: You have been stealing your whole life. You live in a system that prays on weaker nations, environments, and resources, and you are part of that system, so indirectly, you've been stealing your whole life. Last time I checked, you were living on stolen land, breathing stolen air. Oh, wait, too deep for you. How about every consumer good that you eat? Wait, are you a vegan? You steal life every day from animals? You steal habitat from plants? Am I hitting any hypocrisy yet?

SinAmos

So how do I go about getting my $150 back from Sprint? and am I safe to cancel my verizon contract so I can quit paying 2 phone bills now that I bought an Iphone?

hellaBAY

@nutbastard: If you 'sell' me something and i don't pay you for it when i said i would, that is lying and stealing.

So what are your damages?

The decision took issue with Sprint's failure to prove damages. Your simplistic view is not supported by the law.

Re: prostitution

That's the difference between malum in factum and malum prohibitum. Something that is inherently bad - stealing a car - is malum in factum. It is bad in and of itself.

Something that is bad because the law says so - illegal immigration - is malum prohibitum. Liquor was illegal during Prohibition because the law said it was.

OMG! Ponies!

@WD40: Hey, can you tell me what a "tool" is? I feel like you throw words out without understanding their meaning. If you want to be an effective communicator, comprehending your own catch phrases will be a great start. Life changing even.

SinAmos

@aeroworks:

I have a prepaid phone FOR EXACTLY the reasons i've defended here.

"so we don't have to lie, cheat and steal."

should read

"so we don't have to lie, cheat and steal to get what we want but do not deserve."

I've gotten along fine my entire life with out stealing. That's right. not a thing. would parts of my life have been easier if i had, say, stolen a bunch of money? sure. but comfort at the price of others suffering is irrefutably wrong.

nutbastard

@stryker1800: But thats the point. It isn't a question of if you have the right to break the contract or not, nothing in the ruling could be seen to invalidate all contracts or anything like that, the issue is if you do break it what can the penalty be?

If the penalty fits and is based off of what the company can calculate as an actual loss from me breaking it then its ok. Thats not how its done so they should have to go back to the drawing board on this one.

tande04

@Carmen Sucks: Is a reality check a form of rehab?

SinAmos

@SinAmos: Hahaha I knew you were from California.

@nutbastard: I was not generalizing on my statement that everyone in california is a complete tool but I have at least one name (maybe even two with the judge in this ruling).

WD40

My argument is that ETFs are illegal because they are liquidated damages based on a subsidized price for a phone that is artificially inflated in price because the telecommunications entity controls and price-fixes the distribution of the phones on their networks.

An ETF based on a subsidized price of a phone at the cost it is provided to the telecommunications provider would be more legitimate.

Samifumi

I have this hilarious mental image of Jason Chen treating the "Submit" button for this post like a firecracker with a short fuse, turning his face away when he lights it, and running like mad.

nutbastard

@jdaciuk: Well said.

aeroworks

@SinAmos: Wow...you just really don't think your shit don't stink..do you? You need a slap into a reality check.

Carmen Sucks

@bpapa9013: The people that throw stones and burn them as witches. Oh, poor boy, aren't you a daft reflection.

SinAmos

@nutbastard: That's how it works in basketball. Foul the guy who sucks at free throws to stop the clock.

OMG! Ponies!

@Worf: No.

I'm saying that switching cell-phone companies is not on the same level as cheating on your wife.

OMG! Ponies!

@luciusad2004: The "contracts" that most carriers give you in store are usually only a page or two. However, (at least with T-Mobile) they make reference (and therefore incorporate) their Terms and Conditions that is available online (and often, but not always, in printed form in the store).

sojrner

@PennyG:

"You may find it immoral to breach a contract, where society may or may not find it unethical."

Kind of like roughing in football, and accepting the penalty if you think it will win you the game?

nutbastard

This makes me nervous and excited at the same time. While here in Louisiana we live in the 1800's with the way we run things in courts and all that jazz (lol), I kind of do and do not like this at the same time. That is if this even has a chance of making it to any other states... If a contract is illegal, what are the alternatives for the wireless companies? Of course you will be able to cancel your service at any time, but will you also still be able to pay so much for unlimited data or service? Or will you then pay so much PLUS so much more?

I'm apprehensive.

ndrone1

@OMG! Ponies!:

"You're saying that your contract with a cellular phone provider is a matter of honor because you signed your name. The world does not work like that anymore."

Ah, i see, so all honor should be abandoned because "everybody's doing it"?

call me Worf, then, and i'll call you Stanley Tweedle.

nutbastard

@OMG! Ponies!:

Cheers.

PennyG

@nutbastard:

Listen:

Damages are different than a penalty.

The only thing being found illegal is one portion of the contract (the penalty). The contract likely contains a severability clause, making the rest of the contract terms still enforceable, and the remedy of ACTUAL damages available.

Laws, by definition, dictate right and wrong. Maybe you need to look up the distinction between morals and ethics. You may find it immoral to breach a contract, where society may or may not find it unethical.

Sounds like maybe you have some residual guilt, causing you to ride a "moral" high horse.

PennyG

What a joke this thread has become...

Arguing over the spelling of "principles?" For the record, SinAmos was right... Carmen was wrong, and just came off as being juvenile again. Luckily, I recognized nutbastard's comment for what it was - word play (well done, by the way).

More on topic, the issue here is contract law and its foundations as OMG! Ponies! has put forward. Generally, I agree that contracts are binding and there should be penalties for violating them. I depend on this for the continued operation of my business. However, the penalties should always be tied to the actual damages incurred by a termination of the contract when the termination is not "just" as defined by the contract. The California law in question codifies this (from my understanding). The ETFs being charged are in violation of this law, and so no personal morals come into play and are irrelevant here.

sojrner

haha, wow. this is getting heated!

FutureBear

@nutbastard: Nut. I remind you that we are a nation of laws, not of men. While morality should guide you in your personal life, it simply exists outside the realm of contract law.

You're an idealist. I get it and I admire it. But at the end of the day, we're talking about dollars and cents, not morality.

The courts do not exist to correct perceived wrongs because grounding a system on such subjective standards leads to chaos.

Consider that the courts are the last refuge where an individual may have equal standing with a giant corporation. In order for the fight to be, dare I say, fair, the ground rules must be firmly established.

Stop and look at what you're saying. You're saying that your contract with a cellular phone provider is a matter of honor because you signed your name. The world does not work like that anymore.

If you can't prove damages, a court will say it's a penalty fee. Contracts are about where the parties stand.

Also, a word of warning, if you keep harping on "honor" in relationship to services contracts, I'm going to nickname you "Worf".

OMG! Ponies!

@SinAmos: Dude, it's a contract. It's entirely your choice to sign it. It's jerks like you that make contracts so ridiculously long so they can cover all of your lame excuses to get out of a commitment you made. If you don't agree, don't sign it. Pretty simple eh?

atomx

SIGH

nutbastard

@SinAmos:
How does that contribute to a fruitful discussion? And seriously, drop the verbiage, it just makes you sound like a pretentious a-hole. And if you're going to sound like one, use the words correctly.
Main Entry:
rhet·o·ric
Function:
noun
also : insincere or grandiloquent language

Main Entry:
pithy
Function:
adjective
having substance and point : tersely cogent

Seriously, look up definitions next time.

secretmanofagent

Does California really have to try and control everything in their citizen's lives?

BradBot

@PennyG: You're my friend now. Thank you for your well-founded, well-stated comment.

Without any irony or humor and in complete sincerity, I nominate your comment as "Comment of the Day".

Thank you.

OMG! Ponies!

@jdaciuk: Well, to be fair, have you ever considered what the markup on, say, a car is? Or how much extra you pay to buy a Monster cable vs what it actually cost to make?

@icerink: Agreed. I don't see why I should have to pay an ETF if they don't perform as promised (and considering they all pretend to be the best, there's a good chance they don't)

thebigcheese

"If the contract said that I would pay you for a flower and if I breached the contract, that I'd pay a penalty fee, the fee would be disallowed."

Laws aside, giving your word and breaking it is simply wrong. I don't care if you have frivolous legal recourse - that's all a bunch of bullshit. Laws don't dictate right and wrong, and right and wrong don't dictate laws. The fact that current law makes enforcing the contract impossible doesn't make your breaking it any less dishonorable.

nutbastard

You all need to just shut the fuck up now.
...

Carmen Sucks

@SinAmos: How easily those with weak arguments resort to anti-American rhetoric that is completely off-topic and instead hurl ad hominem attacks.

OMG! Ponies!

The judge ruled that way because, generally, penalties for the termination of contracts are illegal. This is because such penalties are against public policy (imposing a penalty-rather than just actual damages-for breach of a contract is economically inefficient.

People intentionally breach contracts all the time because it is in their interest to do so (e.g. A is under contract to buy widgets from X at $10 per widget and they have a contract to sell widgets to Y at $15 per widget, then get an offer from Z to buy widgets at $2 per widget-X is under a duty to mitigate its damages (maybe it can sell widgets for $8, leading to damages due from A of $2 per widget) and A gets profit of $11 per widget rather than $5 per widget, and everyone is better off.)

There are of course exceptions to this rule (e.g. earnest money as liquidated damages for the breach of a real estate sales contract) when damages are very hard to calculate.

If you have two months left on your wireless contract (say $50 per month) and an early termination fee of $200, and you live in California, you should just breach the contract and not pay the fee. Haven't read the case, but I suspect Sprint will be allowed to seek actual damages from you, but $100 is better than $200.

Also, wireless contracts would probably be considered contracts of adhesion (i.e. very one-sided, like an insurance contract, and therefore subject to construction against the drafter (wireless company).

The idea of "no punitive damages for breach of contracts" is contracts 101.

nutbastard should attend law school before freaking out.

PennyG

@nutbastard: And common decency never prevails. There are takers in this world and givers. I'm a giver. What are you?

SinAmos

@tande04:

"However are you going to charge me the same as some one you sold 100 flowers to that didn't pay? No, logically you'd want more out of them then me (or anyone else that you sold just one to)."

in a free market, what i choose to charge for my services is up to me and me alone. I don't have to give everyone the same price. And you all don't have to buy my friggin flowers.

nutbastard

@nutbastard: Sprint shouldn't HAVE to prove damages.

The American system of jurisprudence wholeheartedly disagrees with you.

It is blackletter law that damages must be proven in order to be awarded.

If I had agreed to buy a flower from you and then failed to pay, if you had not provided the flower, you'd have to prove lost profit. If you had provided the flower, you'd be entitled to the agreed-upon price and any lost profits that you had proven.

If the contract said that I would pay you for a flower and if I breached the contract, that I'd pay a penalty fee, the fee would be disallowed.

And if the cost of litigation was more than the value of the contract, I'd tell you not to bother suing.

The courts put parties back to where they were had the contract not been breached. The courts do not award penalties in contract disputes.

OMG! Ponies!

@nutbastard:

to clarify, im not really arguing the 'validity of the law' im arguing against the courts having any say as to what is and isn't an allowable penalty for breach of contract.

nutbastard

@sojrner: It's cute how you think using my age makes me feel bad...or stupid or something witty you are trying to do. Keep trying though sweety.

I am not talking about morals, I am talking about something that is simple. If the courts want to find that the carriers ETFs are illegal, fine by me. What I don't get it, is the people bitching about how they feel some sort of contract has cheated them out of something they were privileged to. You signing the contract gave you the privilege for a cheaper phone and perhaps a few perks in the first few months. If you don't like how carriers use their contracts to screw the consumer it's a very easy solution you could try, DON'T SIGN IT. People are always looking to blame someone else for their ignorance. YOu are defending SinAmos as if he was tolerant of other peoples opinion. He called people on here "daft" he told another user that they are ignorant and foolish ..Yet you defend him. Think before you talk , so you don't look like a hypocrite.

Carmen Sucks

I believe in the standard ETF. I think someone with a $30 plan, and someone with a $200 plan should pay the same amount for two reasons.

1. If you have a $200 a month plan, you're using the phone/device more then someone with a $30 plan. No one is forcing this more expensive plan on you. The ETF has to do with the company losing money on the phone.

2. I think the most obvious problem if you base the ETF off of the rate plan is, is that someone can have $200 a month plan, switch it to the lowest available one, and then cancel because its less.

Give me a break, all this is going to turn into is WAY more expensive phones and serious penalties for reducing your monthly plan. Nothing else.

AJCoombs

@sojrner:

no and i get that this is a legal discussion, however the law is not 'the law' - as important as the interpretation of current laws is the challenging of the very validity of those laws.

i have no clue what the jibber-jabber mumbo-jumbo details of this ruling are. im not arguing the letter of the law, im arguing the validity of the law.

nutbastard

[my point of view because I think it's important] SO THERE!

Scrum

@sojrner:

"I simply find it even more dishonorable to ask a person to sign a contract with illegal terms in the first place."

no one asks anyone to do so. they sign of their own volition. case in point - sub prime borrowers.

nutbastard

@Carmen Sucks: By all means, go ahead and keep telling SinAmos, Ponies, and Penny that they're wrong. My point is that it doesn't really matter. The underlying question is not a moral one. It is a legal one. I hope you understand the distinction.

Moreover, based on your attacks and general intolerance, I'd say you're the one who speaks as though she's had a few drinks... but then again, that'd mean you were drinking while still under 21, and we all know you'd never do anything wrong.

sojrner

Here's the real question -- did a Notary watch you sign it? If not, I don't think it's legal ...

GeekyNerdGuy

@justaj: But the thing you missing is the prices of the phones are artificial. If this goes nationwide i b