12-17-09 03:26 PM
61 123
tools
  1. Jerry Hildenbrand's Avatar
    While it is true lawyers and judges get to determine the legal ramifications of bait and switch, there is an expression...if is smells like a duck, walks like a duck...well you know the rest.
    What do you want, a full page ad apologizing for the typo?
    jeez. Easy there fellas (lassies?) I'm not sitting here saying it is anything other than a mistake. Just commenting on the fact that some companies face up to their mistakes and some sweep them under the rug, and admitting them and moving on works very well for those companies that do.
    12-10-09 06:48 PM
  2. Polychrome's Avatar
    A mistake from an ad is not a bait and switch.

    Geez, why not go complain about all those original Star Wars trailers pushing Luke and Leia as a couple? :P Bring on the Incest!
    12-10-09 11:59 PM
  3. jburris020's Avatar
    BTW if anyone cared this issue is now fixed..I sent the add up to some internals and they got it taken care of. Thank you Twins for pointing it out.
    12-15-09 11:36 PM
  4. PeachyXOXOXO's Avatar
    I tthink it doesn't matter about the ETF, I just got a new phone and I don't plan on leaving. I'm loving VZW so far!
    12-15-09 11:57 PM
  5. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    We had to buy a Tour at full retail since we have a user going to Southeast Asia for 6 months. The CSR started reading off the info about the $350 ETF "because it was a Blackberry" and then paused and then I questioned it and he realized that it didn't apply as we were paying full retail for the device and he confirmed we were grandfathered in at the 175 ETF. It seems like they've got them prepared to give out this info.

    Nothing to see here folks, Move along...
    12-16-09 12:29 AM
  6. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    When we switched from ATT to VZW, they basically gave us a credit per line that was equivalent to the ETF we had to pay. Many of the lines were out of contract, so we made money on the deal. I wouldn't be surprised to see another company eventually offer the same deal, at the new rate...
    12-16-09 12:32 AM
  7. silenttt123's Avatar
    Wow that's pretty lucky! I love vzw and would never leave em. They provide the best service in my opinion, and I am willing to pay a little extra for that.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    12-16-09 01:37 AM
  8. danimal1968's Avatar
    Who is the one holding the gun making the customer buy the phone? Just wanted to know. Because I would like to see a person say, "I forced myself to by this phone and now I have a 350.00 ETF. It was the phone or my life"
    You may like them or you may not, but there are both state and federal laws against false or misleading advertising - and displaying the correct terms at the time of purchase doesn't make it ok. Part of what those laws protect against is wasting your time trying to finalize a purchase when it turns out that there are terms you don't agree to.
    12-17-09 01:26 PM
  9. Super_Mario's Avatar
    You may like them or you may not, but there are both state and federal laws against false or misleading advertising - and displaying the correct terms at the time of purchase doesn't make it ok. Part of what those laws protect against is wasting your time trying to finalize a purchase when it turns out that there are terms you don't agree to.
    But even if the website stated that the ETF was 175.00 and you got a phone the T&C's would then be given and signed BEFORE the purchase was final. You can not agree to something without purchasing it. The same tactic is used in car sales..."get this model of '...' for 12,999", and then you go there and there's only 2 in that price range and they sold already or they have no features you want. Does't mean that the person is obligated to buy the car because they went there with the intention of getting the car for 12,999. It boils down to educating the consumer at the time of purchase and the consumer reading what they sign.
    12-17-09 02:53 PM
  10. j7469's Avatar
    I'm sure that it was an oversight and will be corrected. From what I remember from my business law classes, advertisements are NOT considered binding contracts. Advertisements are used to as tool to open negotiations (or something like that). Either way, in your real contract it will have the correct ETF that is binding.

    As with everything though, if someone can prove that Verizon intentionally mislead with the wrong amount on the ad, then there is cause to receive damages but good luck with that. Your best bet would be to explain that you only purchased that phone based on the EFT listing in the ad and then maybe they would let you break the contract, but even that is a long shoot.
    12-17-09 03:21 PM
  11. Super_Mario's Avatar
    I'm sure that it was an oversight and will be corrected. From what I remember from my business law classes, advertisements are NOT considered binding contracts. Advertisements are used to as tool to open negotiations (or something like that). Either way, in your real contract it will have the correct ETF that is binding.

    As with everything though, if someone can prove that Verizon intentionally mislead with the wrong amount on the ad, then there is cause to receive damages but good luck with that. Your best bet would be to explain that you only purchased that phone based on the EFT listing in the ad and then maybe they would let you break the contract, but even that is a long shoot.

    There is a way out of it.......

    "If you don't want to accept, don't do any of these things. If you do accept, you can cancel a line of Service within 30 days of accepting without having to pay an early termination fee as long as you return any equipment you purchased from us at the time you accepted, but you'll still have to pay for your Service through that date."

    So even if sold under the pretense of a smaller fee and the customer has a gripe this is their option.
    12-17-09 03:26 PM
61 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD