Customer takes Bell to court and wins • Hacker News Board

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#31

Post by Spoom » Tue, May 01, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #19

TallGuyShort wrote: post #4

>> In a move that was pivotal to his legal case, he requested a transcript of the call I take advantage of the fact that the companies who seem to be the most frustrating to deal with, are courteous enough to begin each phone call stating that "calls may be recorded." I have a call recording app on my phone and on at least 3 occasions I have had a company immediately escalate a phone call to a person who immediately…

Many companies' CSRs are under strict instructions to hang up if they ever get so much as a hint that the conversation may be recorded. I find it utterly disgusting. Online chats, emails etc will always be recorded, why are companies so scared of their phone support being recorded? I hope at some point we get regulation requiring companies to share recorded phonecalls with their customers when they demand it. (I'm no…

> Many companies' CSRs are under strict instructions to hang up if they ever get so much as a hint that the conversation may be recorded.

This was our policy when I was doing tech support and I enforced it a small handful of times.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#32

Post by mcherm » Tue, May 01, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #26

rdiddly wrote: post #25

"Before they got to court, Bell offered Ramsay money to drop the case — $300, roughly the amount Ramsay estimated the telecom would be over-billing him for two years. He declined." HA! "Three weeks before the court date, Bell contacted Ramsay again. He was offered $1,000 to settle, but was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Again, Ramsay declined." Wow, big spenders! They'll spare no expense! They'll stop…

> They'll stop at nothing! Would they have gone as high as $1,010? $1,050?!?! The judgment against them was $1,110; how high do you think they should have gone with the settlement offer?

Well, if they'd gone high enough, neither you nor I would be sitting here right now reading this piece of negative publicity about Bell.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#33

Post by chipperyman573 » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #29

ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is utterly ridiculous that iOS is still lacking support for this super basic feature.

But there's a good reason for that -- as long as legislatures keep making it ILLEGAL to use such a feature, can you really blame Apple for not wanting to offer it?

It's not illegal federally or in any of the 38 single-party consent states, as long as the person recording is a member of the conversation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Unite...

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#34

Post by mcherm » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #8

It sounds like I’m this case the sales person said an incorrect price (either on accident or deliberate sales person scummy behavior), so this does seem completely reasonable and good? The alternative seems worse

The law is fairly smart. It is flexible enough to recognize the difference between a simple clerical error or misstatement and an intentional deception.

In this case, OP provides plenty of evidence that this would be a case of intentional deception. Contract law as implemented in most US states says that clerical errors are presumed to be correctable while intentional deception may either invalidate the contract or allow it to be enforced as originally stated.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#35

Post by LukeShu » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #29

ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is utterly ridiculous that iOS is still lacking support for this super basic feature.

But there's a good reason for that -- as long as legislatures keep making it ILLEGAL to use such a feature, can you really blame Apple for not wanting to offer it?

It is not illegal to use such a feature.

In some states ("multi-party consent" states), it is illegal to use the feature without the consent of the person being recorded; just like in some situations it is illegal to use the "camera" feature without the consent of the person being recorded. That doesn't stop Apple for offering a camera on their phone.

Other states have "one-party consent" laws that mean it is always legal for you to record own phone calls.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#36

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

Spoom wrote: post #28

TallGuyShort wrote: post #4

>> In a move that was pivotal to his legal case, he requested a transcript of the call I take advantage of the fact that the companies who seem to be the most frustrating to deal with, are courteous enough to begin each phone call stating that "calls may be recorded." I have a call recording app on my phone and on at least 3 occasions I have had a company immediately escalate a phone call to a person who immediately…

I'm guessing companies will eventually change the message to say that they're recording, and place their call center in a two party state, so you have to request their permission to record on your end (which they will decline).

The specific laws I'm familiar with don't reference consent to each specific recording, they reference consent for it to be recorded in general terms. Unless the law changed I wouldn't bother myself with it.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#37

Post by btilly » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #26

rdiddly wrote: post #25

"Before they got to court, Bell offered Ramsay money to drop the case — $300, roughly the amount Ramsay estimated the telecom would be over-billing him for two years. He declined." HA! "Three weeks before the court date, Bell contacted Ramsay again. He was offered $1,000 to settle, but was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Again, Ramsay declined." Wow, big spenders! They'll spare no expense! They'll stop…

> They'll stop at nothing! Would they have gone as high as $1,010? $1,050?!?! The judgment against them was $1,110; how high do you think they should have gone with the settlement offer?

Given that they are now going to face a class action lawsuit and hundreds more of these, $30,000 would have been cheap for his silence.

The question isn't what he has to gain, it is what they stood to lose.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#38

Post by wpietri » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #25

"Before they got to court, Bell offered Ramsay money to drop the case — $300, roughly the amount Ramsay estimated the telecom would be over-billing him for two years. He declined." HA! "Three weeks before the court date, Bell contacted Ramsay again. He was offered $1,000 to settle, but was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Again, Ramsay declined." Wow, big spenders! They'll spare no expense! They'll stop…

George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

David Ramsay, the guy who sued Bell over this, is my kind of lunatic. Huzzah! Thanks, David, for being unreasonable.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#39

Post by btilly » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

sshanky wrote: post #3

I wonder (not really) how this would go down in the US.

Possibly the same way. Both countries have the same common law traditions.

But I'm surprised that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds did not come into play. This was a well-documented verbal contract, but still it was a verbal contract for 24 months. Which is more than a year, and therefore is more than a verbal contract should be able to cover.

Re: Customer takes Bell to court and wins

#40

Post by ryanlol » Tue, May 01, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #29

ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is utterly ridiculous that iOS is still lacking support for this super basic feature.

But there's a good reason for that -- as long as legislatures keep making it ILLEGAL to use such a feature, can you really blame Apple for not wanting to offer it?

What legislatures would those be?