|
kedo posted:I don't think you and I have dealt with the same company. Comcast IN PERSON is reasonable. Their phone people are terrible. If you go in to drop it off, you can probably get the charges reversed. You aren't going to win the fight - even if you win, you'll spend so much time and money doing it you'll wish you had just gone to the office.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
AT&T once shipped a modem to an address I wouldn't gain access to for a month despite them offering to ship it to my current address (and then forgetting). I didn't sign for it but someone forged my last name (which they hilariously mis-spelled) and the modem was apparently abandoned in front of a vacant apartment. Despite spending 3 hours on the phone with both UPS and AT&T I never got that $120 back. If you don't play nice with them your only options are small claims court or a chargeback and both result in a loss of service. Do you have other service providers you can easily switch to? Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
RapturesoftheDeep posted:Yeah, it's not like I'm planning to keep them, but it is going to be a serious pain to return them, and my housemate says they never came after him for keeping his old cable box. I just wanted to make 100% sure this counts as unsolicited merchandise so that I'm on a firm legal grounding when I call to bitch them out. This is going to backfire on you. Whether or not you are right or wrong isn't going to matter unless you are actually going to go to court. Do you want to go to court over this? When you call a phone monkey and start talking legal, you are going to be transferred to some special hell for people who say legal, lawyer, sue, etc. This is a department full of jerks who quote fine print for a living and confuse customers that threaten things they should not. You will get mad, confused, upset, and nobody will ever agree with you outright, even if you are correct. Then you'll ignore it, they'll send it to collections since you aren't going to pay your bill because you don't think you legally have to. Then you may end up in court (keep in mind you won't have service when they cancel you for non-payment) and you can quote your law at the judge. Then, at that time, if you are correct, you may get your vindication. Keeping in mind this process will takes months, they'll trash your credit, and so forth. Does this sound like a good use of your time yet? Or, you could just take the cable boxes back to the local office. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Does this sound like a good use of your time yet? Some people get bored, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Also Comcast is a huge employer and presence in Philadelphia. Good luck fighting them in Philly courts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also Comcast is a huge employer and presence in Philadelphia. Good luck fighting them in Philly courts. I'd be less worried about being in Philly and more worried about the "and I did nothing" aspect failing to attempt to mitigate. Didn't call to tell Comcast about the issue and ask for another label/shipping box, didn't walk down the block to turn them in, instead did nothing and claims that a business he has a existing relationship with sent him unsolicited merchandise that he wants to keep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
I'm back, and I even gave ya'll a couple extra days of peace and solitude.chemosh6969 posted:What happened with all the stuff about wages? I am no longer employed with my previous company and have since moved onto greener pastures. I did however fire off this e-mail the other day to the owner and operations vice president. quote:Hello, Basically I haven't done anything yet. I wanted to ensure I had lined up new employment before biting the hand that feeds. Now that I am no longer employed with that company it's on like donkey kong and I will be loving them up in the legal arena should they fail to quickly pony up the bux owed to me. Do any lawyers care to chime in on how you would normally advise your client to handle the receipt of such a letter? Let suppose the claims are not completely without merit and the amount of compensation requested was either 500 dollars, 1,500 dollars or 15,000 dollars. At what point would you advise a hypothetical client that they ought to settle rather than litigate the claims presented? Repost cause I found these sub-titles, while self-deprecating, to be far too hilarious. The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: All your hearsay must be substantiated by hearsay The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: DIY lawyering, just hammer home how others are pieces of poo poo The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Smarmy assholes who get their rocks off discrediting your e-character The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Who knew sliced bread was smug as poo poo The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Back on my feet and standing tall above you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
... you didn't talk to a lawyer about this at all, did you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:... you didn't talk to a lawyer about this at all, did you? Previously spoke to a lawyer about the issue of harassment and illegal discrimination in the workplace prior to ending my relationship with the company. In the consultation the attorney seemed to think that there were certainly several elements of discrimination and retaliation and that my case was not entirely without merit. They also informed me, however, that at the time, since I had not been terminated my actual damages were unsubstantial and that he would not be willing to take the case on contingency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Previously spoke to a lawyer about the issue of harassment and illegal discrimination in the workplace prior to ending my relationship with the company. In the consultation the attorney seemed to think that there were certainly several elements of discrimination and retaliation and that my case was not entirely without merit. They also informed me, however, that at the time, since I had not been terminated my actual damages were unsubstantial and that he would not be willing to take the case on contingency. The words you wrote to your ex-company sound stupid. You should have consulted with someone before sending them. You should also have not sent them yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:The words you wrote to your ex-company sound stupid. You should have consulted with someone before sending them. You should also have not sent them yourself. I would counter by saying that sending this e-mail myself does not preclude me from contracting an attorney to send a more threatening letter in the future on a legal letterhead. Additionally, I do have previous experience achieving a settlement under similar circumstances without consulting with an attorney. I can agree that the letter certainly lacks a certain... legalese... but I feel that it adequately expresses the potential and my desire for future litigation. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:I would counter by saying that sending this e-mail myself does not preclude me from contracting an attorney to send a more threatening letter in the future on a legal letterhead. It does, however, make your hypothetical future lawyer's job a touch harder. Congratulation on giving the opposing party your entire game plan I guess? IANAL, but I'd guess that naming an amount that you'd be willing to settle for probably isn't a great opener, either. And I'd bet that they've already engaged counsel and are forwarding all your communications to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Do any lawyers care to chime in on how you would normally advise your client to handle the receipt of such a letter? Let suppose the claims are not completely without merit and the amount of compensation requested was either 500 dollars, 1,500 dollars or 15,000 dollars. At what point would you advise a hypothetical client that they ought to settle rather than litigate the claims presented? That letter? From a pro se plaintiff? Unless there's actually a requirement that they provide you with a copy of the investigation, I'd ignore it until you actually filed a claim. If there was a requirement, I'd send a copy, and that's it. The assumption when you get a pro se letter is that they don't care enough to find a lawyer so they sure aren't going to file anything. (Ooh, I didn't see the "I will seek class action status" part. Did you miss the Supreme Court basically shooting class theories down for employment discrimination cases?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
For anyone who's tracking my anti-Comcast jihad, it seems like my legal mumbo-jumbo actually got them to pay UPS to pick it up from me! If anyone is looking for a fake lawyer who specializes in cable boxes, I may just be hanging out a shingle. Also, the only other option for ISPs around here is Verizon, and my housemate hates them way worse than I hate Comcast, so it looks like I'm stuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
RapturesoftheDeep posted:For anyone who's tracking my anti-Comcast jihad, it seems like my legal mumbo-jumbo actually got them to pay UPS to pick it up from me! If anyone is looking for a fake lawyer who specializes in cable boxes, I may just be hanging out a shingle. If it's Verizon FIOS, find yourself a new roommate and sign yourself up for an amazing fat pipe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(Ooh, I didn't see the "I will seek class action status" part. Did you miss the Supreme Court basically shooting class theories down for employment discrimination cases?) There are other issues at hand. I also referred to other claims possibly suitable for class action. Failure to pay for training courses completed online and failure to pay wages for hours worked don't seem like they would be precluded from class action status. (not a lawyer) In my heart I knew nothing good was coming of posting this, but it's irresistible like tossing mustard off of a freeway overpass. You folks ought to consider that perhaps some people oversee their own legal issues not out of choice, but necessity. I very much would have loved to drop 2,500 on my civil harassment defense. I'd love to pay a lawyer $120 or more to put together a threatening letter for me, and failing that 50,000 dollars to litigate my issue. Not an option, however. Do you know what is an option, though? Pro se, all the way! My desire to litigate this issue to completion is almost none and the chances of me contracting with an attorney beyond "please write this letter for me" are almost nil. I fully understand it could be a year or more before it even went to court. Given how lovely this franchise is, it might not even be financially solvent in that time. I can recall cancelling our health plan, numerous complaints of unpaid invoices and one occasion where they didn't even pay their phone bill to the point it was shut off. Mind you, this is Pizza Place and this particular business does 90% of its transactions by telephone or net connected by the same service. That has to be one of the last things to go before "not paying the employees". Essentially I'm hoping they don't call my bluff and I'm reminding them that If they do, I still have several options completely free to me but costly, annoying and time consuming for them. I give this plan 6 out of 10 pizza slices for ingenuity and likelyhood to succeed. It does however garner 10 out of 10 moneybags for cost effectiveness and savings. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
A question regarding apartment security/pet deposits in California: My girlfriend recently finished renting an apartment in California. She was required to pay a $750 security deposit. Instead of putting down the entire amount, she paid $130 for a "SureDeposit", which essentially acted as a non-refundable bond that was good for up to $750. In addition, because they had a pet cat, another $750 "pet deposit" was required. We recently received the itemized statement detailing work done to the apartment against our deposits--$70 to clean the carpet, and $150 to paint the walls--neither of which had anything to do with the cat, specifically. In fact, she only lived there for six months, and the cat, which hardly left the bedroom, wasn't even there the entire time. However, only ~$530 is being refunded, which is basically the pet deposit minus the aforementioned costs. The bond (or the <$750 it is supposed to cover) are not mentioned in the itemized list. My problem is that I don't understand why the SureDeposit security deposit wasn't used to cover these costs first, with a full refund of the "pet deposit" to follow--especially since these were not pet-related fixes. I have searched for any sort of California civil code that defines what a pet deposit can and cannot be used for, because I feel that it is being used incorrectly while the security bond she paid for is going to waste doing nothing. Am I crazy here? I feel like she should have gotten the entire $750 pet deposit back, because none of it was used to address actual pet issues (like scratches, urine, etc.)
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:There are other issues at hand. I also referred to other claims possibly suitable for class action. Failure to pay for training courses completed online and failure to pay wages for hours worked don't seem like they would be precluded from class action status. (not a lawyer) From the Law Offices of Leonard J. Crabs: Dear Angry Hippo, In response to your recent line of questioning in the legal advice mega-thread on the forums that surely are Something Awful, we the legal minded have one question on cross examination. We must remind you at this point, the legal advice mega-thread is hosted in international waters, and maritime law does apply. We can declare ye a pirate and make ye walk the plank matey, ARRR! if you fail to answer truthfully. What happened in your life to make you this way? Sincerely, Simon J. Crabs IV Admirality Law Expert The Law Offices of Leonard J. Crabs
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:From the Law Offices of Leonard J. Crabs: It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the company cancelling my healthcare coverage with no notice (and later incurring over 50,000 dollars in medical bills for an E.R. visit and subsequent hospital stay related to a dog bite), failing to pay me for all hours worked, having me perform training off the clock, failing to address issues of harassment and discrimination and subjecting me to repeated humiliation as I try to explain to the oven repair company that "No we really are going to pay that bill any day now, please don't send us to collections". Nope, none of that has any bearing on why I would want to gently caress my employer over for a quick buck. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:You folks ought to consider that perhaps some people oversee their own legal issues not out of choice, but necessity. Oh my god, I have never thought of this before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
This is my favourite thread so much of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Why don't high schools offer basic education in law? It seems that grasping the basics wouldn't take up any more time than geometry and trigonometry which are much less useful for most people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Why don't high schools offer basic education in law? It seems that grasping the basics wouldn't take up any more time than geometry and trigonometry which are much less useful for most people. Mine did, actually. One semester on basic American legal concepts, one on basic concepts of American government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Mine did, actually. One semester on basic American legal concepts, one on basic concepts of American government. Probably more big picture rather than practical application though? I'm talking about being able to apply concepts to every day situations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the company cancelling my healthcare coverage with no notice (and later incurring over 50,000 dollars in medical bills for an E.R. visit and subsequent hospital stay related to a dog bite), failing to pay me for all hours worked, having me perform training off the clock, failing to address issues of harassment and discrimination and subjecting me to repeated humiliation as I try to explain to the oven repair company that "No we really are going to pay that bill any day now, please don't send us to collections". If they couldn't pay you then, what makes you think they're going to be able to pay you now or in the future? The judge isn't going to pull money out of thin air. baquerd posted:Probably more big picture rather than practical application though? I'm talking about being able to apply concepts to every day situations. We covered employment law pretty extensively in my 11th grade economics elective, for some reason. (I think it was economics, I had the same teacher for a lot of classes) Plus the difference between civil law and common law in history class. That was in Canada ten years ago, so I don't know how representative that is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Probably more big picture rather than practical application though? I'm talking about being able to apply concepts to every day situations. Bit of both, as I recall (though it was over a decade ago). The every day situations were more focused on criminal law issues - what not to say to cops (anything), search warrants, etc., as opposed to contract law and similar things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If they couldn't pay you then, what makes you think they're going to be able to pay you now or in the future? The judge isn't going to pull money out of thin air. Don't be an rear end. Also, please read the post where I said I was unlikely to actually pursue this through the court system and mentioned this exact possibility. For content: They may or may not have enough funds to pay a small settlement, but if they can't pay out the meager amount I am asking they certainly do not have the money to pay for legal services. My understanding is a corporation cannot represent themselves in court, therefore they must pay an attorney to represent them. Failure to do so will likely result in a default judgement against them.. The hopeful end result is if it is less costly to pay the settlement than it is to defend against a suit in court (regardless of the merits) that a settlement will be forthcoming. Of course there is always the option that they tell me to go gently caress myself on principle or that they are too broke to settle, too broke to represent themselves and too broke to collect a penny from any judgement, but I do not think that is currently the case. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Don't be an rear end. Also, please read the post where I said I was unlikely to actually pursue this through the court system and mentioned this exact possibility. So you're making demands that you don't expect them to be able to meet, and backing those demands with empty threats? Why? Do you have nothing else worth your time and energy in your life? Are you so petty that you need the satisfaction of a pyrrhic victory over a failing pizza place? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Why don't high schools offer basic education in law? It seems that grasping the basics wouldn't take up any more time than geometry and trigonometry which are much less useful for most people. Law is ridiculously complex and it takes smart people years to become even basically competent at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:A question regarding apartment security/pet deposits in California: I am not a lawyer, but security deposits don't act as a maximum payout. They are a method for the landlord to be sure that he has access to your funds. If you had not paid a pet deposit, and only done the SureDeposit, then when you move out they would have sent you a bill for $220 to clean the carpet and paint the wall, and if you refused to pay, SureDeposit would pay your landlord $220, and then SureDeposit would come after you for that $220 plus fees and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:So you're making demands that you don't expect them to be able to meet, and backing those demands with empty threats? Remember what I said 20 pages ago about dickheads trying to disparage my e-character. This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. You are being purposely obtuse. I fully expect them to be able to meet my demands, although conceded it is possible that they may not. This is not a single store operation, it is a multi unit franchise for a major brand. While they are on shaky ground they are not flat broke as they have aspirations to open another store. (Why you would want to open yet another when you already aren't making money is a mystery to me, but these aren't the smartest business people) I don't really see these issues as petty, unless you view, "wanting to be paid for my work and not be discriminated against" as petty complaints. If so I'd really like to contract for you to do some housework for me and then gently caress you over on the pay and treat you like poo poo, cause its all just petty especially if I'm probably too broke to pay you even if you sued me. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:A question regarding apartment security/pet deposits in California: I was curious about what the heck this whole deposit bond thingy was so I went to their site to check it out... It looks like Devor hit the nail on the head From the suredeposit website... (really? you didn't check?) quote:What happens if I owe rent, fees, or cause damage to my apartment upon move-out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:Remember what I said 20 pages ago about dickheads trying to disparage my e-character. This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. I don't understand, whether or not they could pay you is irrelevant. What incentive do they have to pay you until you actually take them to court? They know just as well as you do that you won't actually file.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
I think it is rather presumptuous for any employer to believe that I wouldn't back any of the claims I've made. I've already filled out (although not submitted) the forms for a wage claim, it is quite simple. The EEOC complaint, while somewhat more time consuming, is not difficult either. Filing the papers in civil court is a free affair as well, because I do believe I would qualify for a fee waiver. Obviously this is the most nuclear and time consuming of the 3 options for recourse. It isn't unprecedented either. I resolved a similar dispute with an employer with 2 phone calls to the main office and signing some paperwork. It literally went "Hi I used to work for you guys, but you didn't pay me X which is owed because of Y. I worked hard for you and all I want is whats fair, and I think X is fair because of Y. I like to keep things at the lowest level and personally hate lawyers so I'm just calling trying to resolve things man to man". They responded "I sure hope you have good evidence that Y happened." I said, "Not exactly, but I would certainly be able to subpoena the relevant documents relating to Y. I'm also not the only person Y happened to and I think it might be eligible for class action status" They asked for time to consult with their attorney and told me I could sign some paperwork and pick up my check two days later. No attorney involvement on my end, although the company did have one write up the paperwork. They found it was much, much more preferable to shut me up and never see me again than deal with even the potential of a lengthy lawsuit, which may have been eligible for class action status. The reality is that these business engage in flagrant violations of the law with almost all of their staff. They willingly open themselves to massive liability on the expectation that no one will sue over their McJob. When they do, they often fold is my experience. There are several incidences of companies in the same type of business and geographic area which had class action lawsuits successfully leveled against them for the exact type of claims I am making. It isn't unthinkable that someone with legitimate issues might be given a settlement well below the actual damages incurred without resulting to lawsuits. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Why don't high schools offer basic education in law? It seems that grasping the basics wouldn't take up any more time than geometry and trigonometry which are much less useful for most people. I can see that being a problem though. First you'd need to find a lawyer willing to take a pay cut to teach high school. If you're teaching them legal theory you might get by without potential malpractice/unauthorized practice issues, but if you're giving what could be construed to be counsel (say in response to how to handle a traffic stop.) to a student who then gets arrested, and says that their actions were taken based on your advice, well that could be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
I think it is hilarious you think lawyers would be taking a pay cut to teach high school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
edit: went too far
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Angry Hippo posted:A pile of whiny, over-reacting bullshit. The absolute worst part about your posts is that you're so close to having a point. It's like you're half a foot from the moral high ground and decide to nuke the whole loving mountain because someone had the temerity to respond to your comments with anything but a blowjob. Seriously, just stop posting and go away. You've already decided that you know enough about this to get what you want out of it. Whether you're right or wrong, posting here will only serve to make you angrier when we call you out for being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think it is hilarious you think lawyers would be taking a pay cut to teach high school. I'm a lovely solo and I'd still be taking a pay cut to teach high school. Or do you know high school teachers that are making biglaw associate salaries, or even mid-size firm salaries? The average teacher's salary where I live is $45k. Considering a lawyer isn't going to have teaching credentials, I'd expect them to be making less. -e- Unless you're saying that you aren't going to find one WILLING to take the pay cut...in which case that's my point exactly. Leif. fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
baquerd posted:Why don't high schools offer basic education in law? It seems that grasping the basics wouldn't take up any more time than geometry and trigonometry which are much less useful for most people. And for some reason, people don't think it's a good idea to tell that to kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 06:29
|
|