8 ms·

"Yes, you're legally obligated to pay the bill" Yes in civil court. So, no don't pay it. This isn't London 1689. Debtors prisons do not exist. "Claiming an

"Yes, you're legally obligated to pay the bill" Yes in civil court. So, no don't pay it. This isn't London 1689. Debtors prisons do not exist. "Claiming an unfounded dispute or transferring funds to a new company is fraud" Explaining to the credit card company you were tricked or confused in this purchase is not fraud.

manigandham 7y ago
1) Civil vs criminal does not change the fact that incurred bills are a legal obligation. 2) AWS did not take advantage of you and making a mistake does not absolve you of responsibility. There's nothing to dispute. 3) Bankruptcy is allowed, and is also exactly what happened. You stated other things like filing fake disputes and transferring funds to a new company, which is fraud. And that does come with criminal charges. EDIT: to your completely revised comment - Bills are still owed, even if it's only civil, and judgements can result in wages, taxes and other assets being garnished. Saying you were "tricked or confused" when you weren't is fraudulent, and credit card companies are not going to defend you from that. Unless AWS forced those charges or failed to deliver services, there's no dispute.
- ransom1538 7y ago
  "AWS did not take advantage of you" How do you know? That is what a court system is for. "like filing fake disputes and transferring funds to a new company" Ah the old straw man. Nope. I didn't say file fake disputes. "please don't recommend running away from debts" Having the ability to not pay debts is the entire point of Limited Liability Companies. People out of human dignity should have the right to NOT pay debts. Please don't recommend paying whatever a debtor wants.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The poster clearly admitted what happened. Mistakenly running up a large bill doesn't clear your responsibility to pay that bill and knowingly filing disputes or changing companies is fraud. You can definitely go to court but without clear evidence you will likely lose and then owe even more. Since you're revising your comments, there's no point to further discussion but please don't recommend running away from debts. That's not going to end well.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      A person might aspire to be responsible for a bill like that, but that doesn't make it ethical or good business for Amazon to refuse to waive or reduce it. Familiar with The Merchant of Venice?
      - manigandham 7y ago
        That's a separate topic. And it doesn't mean you should ignore your debts as the other poster was saying, because that's also unethical and possibly fraudulent.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Nobody should ignore their debts. I think maybe you should just ignore whoever you think was suggesting that, because that's obviously impractical/self destructive and not worth debating.
        manigandham 7y ago
        That was the original comment that started this whole thread. Maybe you should reply to them instead of telling me what not to do hours after the conversation is over.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        It no longer says the same thing, apparently. No point in arguing with them about what it (allegedly) used to say "hours later".
        manigandham 7y ago
        Again, the conversation is over. You arrived well after the other poster and I left our replies, only to add a tangent, seemingly accuse me of lying, and to tell me not to leave those replies in the first place? That's very strange.
- tmpz22 7y ago
  Isn't it a well accepted fact that cloud pricing is opaque? Does that not leave the discussion open to an argument that in lieu of not understanding the pricing of multiple interconnected services, it is very difficult for a user to make informed decisions such that perhaps not all of the liability is their own?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    It's not opaque. It's actually very transparent and well-documented. The issue would be complexity, but that's going to be a very difficult claim considering that you weren't forced into using any of it.
zelly 7y ago
If you cannot pay, negotiate with Amazon instead of stiffing them after agreeing to the TOS.

manigandham 7y ago

1) Civil vs criminal does not change the fact that incurred bills are a legal obligation. 2) AWS did not take advantage of you and making a mistake does not absolve you of responsibility. There's nothing to dispute. 3) Bankruptcy is allowed, and is also exactly what happened. You stated other things like filing fake disputes and transferring funds to a new company, which is fraud. And that does come with criminal charges. EDIT: to your completely revised comment - Bills are still owed, even if it's only civil, and judgements can result in wages, taxes and other assets being garnished. Saying you were "tricked or confused" when you weren't is fraudulent, and credit card companies are not going to defend you from that. Unless AWS forced those charges or failed to deliver services, there's no dispute.

ransom1538 7y ago
"AWS did not take advantage of you" How do you know? That is what a court system is for. "like filing fake disputes and transferring funds to a new company" Ah the old straw man. Nope. I didn't say file fake disputes. "please don't recommend running away from debts" Having the ability to not pay debts is the entire point of Limited Liability Companies. People out of human dignity should have the right to NOT pay debts. Please don't recommend paying whatever a debtor wants.
- manigandham 7y ago
  The poster clearly admitted what happened. Mistakenly running up a large bill doesn't clear your responsibility to pay that bill and knowingly filing disputes or changing companies is fraud. You can definitely go to court but without clear evidence you will likely lose and then owe even more. Since you're revising your comments, there's no point to further discussion but please don't recommend running away from debts. That's not going to end well.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    A person might aspire to be responsible for a bill like that, but that doesn't make it ethical or good business for Amazon to refuse to waive or reduce it. Familiar with The Merchant of Venice?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That's a separate topic. And it doesn't mean you should ignore your debts as the other poster was saying, because that's also unethical and possibly fraudulent.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Nobody should ignore their debts. I think maybe you should just ignore whoever you think was suggesting that, because that's obviously impractical/self destructive and not worth debating.
        manigandham 7y ago
        That was the original comment that started this whole thread. Maybe you should reply to them instead of telling me what not to do hours after the conversation is over.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        It no longer says the same thing, apparently. No point in arguing with them about what it (allegedly) used to say "hours later".
        manigandham 7y ago
        Again, the conversation is over. You arrived well after the other poster and I left our replies, only to add a tangent, seemingly accuse me of lying, and to tell me not to leave those replies in the first place? That's very strange.
tmpz22 7y ago
Isn't it a well accepted fact that cloud pricing is opaque? Does that not leave the discussion open to an argument that in lieu of not understanding the pricing of multiple interconnected services, it is very difficult for a user to make informed decisions such that perhaps not all of the liability is their own?
- manigandham 7y ago
  It's not opaque. It's actually very transparent and well-documented. The issue would be complexity, but that's going to be a very difficult claim considering that you weren't forced into using any of it.

zelly 7y ago

If you cannot pay, negotiate with Amazon instead of stiffing them after agreeing to the TOS.