3 ms·

Couldn't you sue? Your home purchase was predicated on Comcast's word that they could service your new home. You require it for work. Now you've bought a home,

by drcube 12y ago

Couldn't you sue? Your home purchase was predicated on Comcast's word that they could service your new home. You require it for work. Now you've bought a home, have to sell it for a loss, all due to Comcast. I don't see why you can't stick them with the bill. Call a lawyer, have them talk to Comcast, and maybe they'll change their tune about extending their line to your home.

Filligree 12y ago
Only if they had that as a contingency clause in the contract for the house. Which they probably didn't.
- drcube 12y ago
  Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer. Just throwing out ideas.
  - natch 12y ago
    Your idea is worth investigation. A contingency would not help with a suit. It would have helped in avoiding the purchase altogether, but that's another matter.
- maratd 12y ago
  > Only if they had that as a contingency clause in the contract for the house. Might be a good idea for the next house.
- natch 12y ago
  No... a contingency is between the buyer and the seller. It just gives the buyer an out if certain things don't happen. It doesn't give Comcast any obligations in the matter. Comcast could be held accountable for other reasons, but not by a contingency.
  - Filligree 12y ago
    That was my point. There's no way to force Comcast to serve them, but they could have gotten out of the purchase.
logfromblammo 12y ago
Comcast made an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact, for the purpose of inducing someone to purchase service from them. That person relied upon that misrepresentation, and sustained loss of time and business revenue as a result, and possibly also capital loss on resale of the "unserviceable" house. Purchasing the house was a necessary precondition to buying Comcast service, and the blogger did not wish to buy a house without service. Comcast didn't confirm their misrepresentation until long after the damage was already done. The blogger seems to have adequate grounds to file a civil fraud suit, wherein he might ask that he be made whole for the losses sustained as a result of the misrepresentation, or compel Comcast to act to make their false statements truthful. Basically, pay for the aggravation, or do whatever it takes to provide service to the house, at their own expense. I'm not a lawyer, but this guy should definitely go for a consultation with the ambulance-chasingest, billboard-advertisingest attorney in his county. And then demand a jury trial. There is no way that any given 12 people from the jury pool could see the facts of the case, and not want to curbstomp Comcast into oblivion.

by drcube 12y ago

Filligree 12y ago

Only if they had that as a contingency clause in the contract for the house. Which they probably didn't.

drcube 12y ago
Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer. Just throwing out ideas.
- natch 12y ago
  Your idea is worth investigation. A contingency would not help with a suit. It would have helped in avoiding the purchase altogether, but that's another matter.
maratd 12y ago
> Only if they had that as a contingency clause in the contract for the house. Might be a good idea for the next house.
natch 12y ago
No... a contingency is between the buyer and the seller. It just gives the buyer an out if certain things don't happen. It doesn't give Comcast any obligations in the matter. Comcast could be held accountable for other reasons, but not by a contingency.
- Filligree 12y ago
  That was my point. There's no way to force Comcast to serve them, but they could have gotten out of the purchase.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Comcast made an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact, for the purpose of inducing someone to purchase service from them. That person relied upon that misrepresentation, and sustained loss of time and business revenue as a result, and possibly also capital loss on resale of the "unserviceable" house. Purchasing the house was a necessary precondition to buying Comcast service, and the blogger did not wish to buy a house without service. Comcast didn't confirm their misrepresentation until long after the damage was already done. The blogger seems to have adequate grounds to file a civil fraud suit, wherein he might ask that he be made whole for the losses sustained as a result of the misrepresentation, or compel Comcast to act to make their false statements truthful. Basically, pay for the aggravation, or do whatever it takes to provide service to the house, at their own expense. I'm not a lawyer, but this guy should definitely go for a consultation with the ambulance-chasingest, billboard-advertisingest attorney in his county. And then demand a jury trial. There is no way that any given 12 people from the jury pool could see the facts of the case, and not want to curbstomp Comcast into oblivion.