4 ms·

Contract termination usually means that parties settle their obligations in a way that terminates the relationship fully. The plaintiffs may not have expected t

by rdancer 10y ago

Contract termination usually means that parties settle their obligations in a way that terminates the relationship fully. The plaintiffs may not have expected this, but consider the patently unjust situation when customers can cancel the contract, while T-Mobile still must provide financing for their handsets (which is what the plaintiffs want). Why would it be in the public interest to force T-Mobile to do that? This is a case of somebody not thinking things through, and not reading what they're signing. T-Mobile may be more explicit, but should they be forced to explain every possible contingency? That's why the print is small — because reality is messy, and there are so very many corner cases.

dalke 10y ago
There isn't one contract, but two: > Customers who buy phones and corresponding no-contract plans through T-Mobile buy into two separate agreements: a month-to-month agreement to buy the phone service and another to purchase the actual device, which can be paid in installments. The customer wanted to cancel the month-to-month agreement and still pay off the handset in the agreed-upon time: > According to the court documents, Farhi continued paying T-Mobile for the phones each month, based on the terms in the device agreement. Nor was the loan for the handset originally from T-Mobile. He: > signed up for a month-to-month service plan through T-Mobile. The phones cost $2,600, which he agreed to pay in 24 installments, as part of a loan that originated from a company called WebBank. T-Mobile immediately took over servicing of the loan, and told Farhi in a letter that the established terms and pay-off dates would not change. Going to your comment, this means 1) there was no contract termination, because there were two different contracts, 2) T-Mobile would get paid for providing the financing, and 3) why should this be a corner case at all, especially given T-Mobile's large print which would suggest that the monthly service from T-Mobile won't be connected to a loan agreement with WebBank?

by rdancer 10y ago

dalke 10y ago

There isn't one contract, but two: > Customers who buy phones and corresponding no-contract plans through T-Mobile buy into two separate agreements: a month-to-month agreement to buy the phone service and another to purchase the actual device, which can be paid in installments. The customer wanted to cancel the month-to-month agreement and still pay off the handset in the agreed-upon time: > According to the court documents, Farhi continued paying T-Mobile for the phones each month, based on the terms in the device agreement. Nor was the loan for the handset originally from T-Mobile. He: > signed up for a month-to-month service plan through T-Mobile. The phones cost $2,600, which he agreed to pay in 24 installments, as part of a loan that originated from a company called WebBank. T-Mobile immediately took over servicing of the loan, and told Farhi in a letter that the established terms and pay-off dates would not change. Going to your comment, this means 1) there was no contract termination, because there were two different contracts, 2) T-Mobile would get paid for providing the financing, and 3) why should this be a corner case at all, especially given T-Mobile's large print which would suggest that the monthly service from T-Mobile won't be connected to a loan agreement with WebBank?