I am suing my telephone company in small claims court, in 2 days.
I recorded my telephone conversation with the two phone company representatives who pitched my current plan to me and quoted the rate which I ultimately agreed to. I was initially billed at the agreed upon rate. Subsequent bills removed the $15 monthly discount that I was promised. The company initially would not respond to my written queries (via e-mail) about the price increase. One rep called me and (very abusively) claimed that I had agreed to the higher rate and was never charged less. (Unfortunately, he hung up before I could record him).
After filing suit, one of the two reps I spoke with initially (in the recorded conversation) wrote me a letter, claiming that the rate she quoted was an error -- and that I had been notified of this earlier. I never received any such notification and don't know how to prove it. Futhermore, I don't think I should have to pay for their errors. The call in which I agreed to the rates followed months of not being able to get a straight answer about the cost of the particular bundle I was seeking (POTS landline + fiber Internet access). I had quite a bit of discussion about the rates with the two women who called me. They insisted on selling me a digital voice line, rather than the copper one. I balked at the initial quote, then utlimately agreed to the discounted rate when they discovered that I qualified for it. This company has been repeatedly fined in jurisdictions all over the country for engaging in just this sort of bait and switch tactic.
The phone company lawyers have been trying to negotiate a settlement with me out of court -- all of them which require me to simply pay the higher rate. I couldn't decipher their latest postion, so I turned it down. They seemed to be trying to get me to agree with language that would make the contract fall under the Statute of Frauds, or not fall under it. Sorry to be so vague, but their prose was so contorted that I really couldn't tell what they were trying to do. And I honestly don't know whether the statute of frauds applies or does not apply in this case.
Here are a few facts that I believe may be relevant:
The company first offered me a contract for a fixed period of 2 years (in the recorded telephone conversation). I turned it down, saying that I plan to move in a couple of months. I didn't know then and don't yet know if I will keep the same phone company after I move. So, our verbal contact is for an indefinate period, but could be completed in less than a year. I can cancel it at any time without penalty. My phone bills contain long, complicated, legal language, in a very small typeface -- but no signatures. I have never signed any agreement with this company. When I pay my bills, I note that I am disputing their figures right on the check (in red ink). I pay promptly and in full, so they can't shut off my phone (which they have tried to do, in spite of this).
I would appreciate any advice - especially a citation of case law that makes any relevant point. My position is that the phone company knew or should have known its own rates. I relied on their word and feel that they should be held accountable for it.
I recorded my telephone conversation with the two phone company representatives who pitched my current plan to me and quoted the rate which I ultimately agreed to. I was initially billed at the agreed upon rate. Subsequent bills removed the $15 monthly discount that I was promised. The company initially would not respond to my written queries (via e-mail) about the price increase. One rep called me and (very abusively) claimed that I had agreed to the higher rate and was never charged less. (Unfortunately, he hung up before I could record him).
After filing suit, one of the two reps I spoke with initially (in the recorded conversation) wrote me a letter, claiming that the rate she quoted was an error -- and that I had been notified of this earlier. I never received any such notification and don't know how to prove it. Futhermore, I don't think I should have to pay for their errors. The call in which I agreed to the rates followed months of not being able to get a straight answer about the cost of the particular bundle I was seeking (POTS landline + fiber Internet access). I had quite a bit of discussion about the rates with the two women who called me. They insisted on selling me a digital voice line, rather than the copper one. I balked at the initial quote, then utlimately agreed to the discounted rate when they discovered that I qualified for it. This company has been repeatedly fined in jurisdictions all over the country for engaging in just this sort of bait and switch tactic.
The phone company lawyers have been trying to negotiate a settlement with me out of court -- all of them which require me to simply pay the higher rate. I couldn't decipher their latest postion, so I turned it down. They seemed to be trying to get me to agree with language that would make the contract fall under the Statute of Frauds, or not fall under it. Sorry to be so vague, but their prose was so contorted that I really couldn't tell what they were trying to do. And I honestly don't know whether the statute of frauds applies or does not apply in this case.
Here are a few facts that I believe may be relevant:
The company first offered me a contract for a fixed period of 2 years (in the recorded telephone conversation). I turned it down, saying that I plan to move in a couple of months. I didn't know then and don't yet know if I will keep the same phone company after I move. So, our verbal contact is for an indefinate period, but could be completed in less than a year. I can cancel it at any time without penalty. My phone bills contain long, complicated, legal language, in a very small typeface -- but no signatures. I have never signed any agreement with this company. When I pay my bills, I note that I am disputing their figures right on the check (in red ink). I pay promptly and in full, so they can't shut off my phone (which they have tried to do, in spite of this).
I would appreciate any advice - especially a citation of case law that makes any relevant point. My position is that the phone company knew or should have known its own rates. I relied on their word and feel that they should be held accountable for it.
