Help! Cancelled AT&T and They Won't Give Trade In Back

[C DM]

There's many bad deals out there.
I can name a bunch of them like rent to own stores that sell appliances/furniture that after the 24 month payments the $500 TV ended up costing you $3000, payday loans with crazy interest rates and other very bad deals for consumers out there.
If you agree to the terms and get yourself into a binding contract weather that's morally right or wrong you have to abide to what you signed.
No?

There are bad deals and then there are bad terms. It seems that the return period doesn't really allow to basically undo the purchase as it normally promises then it's not quite what it presents itself as.

But bad deal or terms, seems like pointing out those bad parts and discussing them is quite appropriate. Some might go with the "it is what it is" approach, which is fine, but it's just as fine to point out and discuss the bad parts about those things.
[doublepost=1478636224][/doublepost]

I don't have a law degree, where did you get yours?

Right and enforceable are vastly different. The point is, the OP's friend agreed to the terms.

What does a law degree have to do with what has been brought up?

 

[TWO2SEVEN]

There are bad deals and then there are bad terms. It seems that the return period doesn't really allow to basically undo the purchase as it normally promises then it's not quite what it presents itself as.

But bad deal or terms, seems like pointing out those bad parts and discussing them is quite appropriate. Some might go with the "it is what it is" approach, which is fine, but it's just as fine to point out and discuss the bad parts about those things.
[doublepost=1478636224][/doublepost]
What does a law degree have to do with what has been brought up?

You keep bringing up what is an isn't enforceable. I assumed you actually knew what you were talking about.

 

[C DM]

You keep bringing up what is an isn't enforceable. I assumed you actually knew what you were talking about.

Seems like you weren't actually reading what I was bringing up. I was bringing up that just because something is in the terms doesn't mean that it is therefore simply enforceable (or perhaps even legal) just because it's in the terms (and even agreed to).

 

[TWO2SEVEN]

Seems like you weren't actually reading what I was bringing up. I was bringing up that just because something is in the terms doesn't mean that it is therefore simply enforceable (or perhaps even legal) just because it's in the terms (and even agreed to).

I see what you are saying. I am asking for your source on this.

If a signed contract is not enforceable then what is the point?

 

[Applejuiced]

There are bad deals and then there are bad terms. It seems that the return period doesn't really allow to basically undo the purchase as it normally promises then it's not quite what it presents itself as.

But bad deal or terms, seems like pointing out those bad parts and discussing them is quite appropriate. Some might go with the "it is what it is" approach, which is fine, but it's just as fine to point out and discuss the bad parts about those things.
[doublepost=1478636224][/doublepost]

I hear you.
Carriers and big companies in general will always look after themselves and hire big teams of lawyers to legally protect themselves and they can care less about the consumer.

 

[C DM]

I see what you are saying. I am asking for your source on this.

If a signed contract is not enforceable then what is the point?

Let's say that there's a contract that says someone is entitled to kill someone else if they don't do something (like pay them back) or something similar to that. Are you saying that because all the involved parties would agree to those terms and sign then that would be a legally enforceable part of the contract? Come on now. Contract disputes are not only common but prevalent, if signed contracts were fully ironclad and the final word just based on their terms and what's agreed on, how could there even be contract law and disputes out there?
[doublepost=1478637908][/doublepost]

I hear you.
Carriers and big companies in general will always look after themselves and hire big teams of lawyers to legally protect themselves and they can care less about the consumer.

Agreed, that is certainly the case. Certainly not new or surprising. But when at least some more obvious cases of such things come up it's not surprising to have it brought up and discussed.

 

[CaptMarvel]

Let's say that there's a contract that says someone is entitled to kill someone else if they don't do something (like pay them back) or something similar to that. Are you saying that because all the involved parties would agree to those terms and sign then that would be a legally enforceable part of the contract? Come on now. Contract disputes are not only common but prevalent, if signed contracts were fully ironclad and the final word just based on their terms and what's agreed on, how could there even be contract law and disputes out there?
[doublepost=1478637908][/doublepost]
Agreed, that is certainly the case. Certainly not new or surprising. But when at least some more obvious cases of such things come up it's not surprising to have it brought up and discussed.

I don't think murder/for hire assasinations are synonymous in this case as it isn't legal.

 

[C DM]

I don't think murder/for hire assasinations are synonymous in this case as it isn't legal.

You are REALLY reaching here.

Nothing was being put forth as being synonymous or anything like that. Simply providing an example of a general concept that was being questioned: contract terms not necessarily being enforceable (or even legal) even though they are clearly spelled out and agreed on and signed by all the involved parties.

 

[TWO2SEVEN]

Let's say that there's a contract that says someone is entitled to kill someone else if they don't do something (like pay them back) or something similar to that. Are you saying that because all the involved parties would agree to those terms and sign then that would be a legally enforceable part of the contract? Come on now. Contract disputes are not only common but prevalent, if signed contracts were fully ironclad and the final word just based on their terms and what's agreed on, how could there even be contract law and disputes out there?
[doublepost=1478637908][/doublepost]
Agreed, that is certainly the case. Certainly not new or surprising. But when at least some more obvious cases of such things come up it's not surprising to have it brought up and discussed.

You are REALLY reaching here.

 

[CaptMarvel]

Nothing was being put forth as being synonymous. Simply providing an example of a general concept that was being questioned: contract terms not necessarily being enforceable (or even legal) even though they are clearly spelled out and agreed on and signed by all the involved parties.

I think the determinants or issues in the OP's post and some of the comments seem to be around ethical and legal.

Is a phone carrier unethical for this? No. BUT I can see why some may have an issue with this.

Is not returning a product that was previously owned by someone else illegal if they signed and surrendered ownership? Certainly not.

Now, if the friend of the OP was thinking wisely, maybe he should have called customer support and spoke with someone in the Retention Department. Not sure how much they'd offer to a customer that no longer wanted service however it might not hurt to ask for something for the value of the trade in.

 

[kngelv]

I finally found out what happened. He went to the AT&T store on friday. As we all assumed they told him his phone was already sent out and that there was nothing he could do about getting it back or getting a credit. Gave them back his Galaxy Edge and his sons 6S Plus. Called Verizon on saturday and was able to get his number ported back. For his son he bought a 64GB unlocked 6S plus from Best Buy for $550.00. They told him that if he wanted to get his son's number ported he had to have a phone to replace the one he traded in to AT&T. This was the phone he was buying at Best Buy. Went to the Verizon store on saturday to straighten everything out. The store manager would not help and seemed to think my friend was doing something shady. Went to a different Verizon store on sunday. Was able to get everything squared away. In the end he still owes Verizon $850.00 in contract obligations for the phone he traded in plus spent another $550.00 for his son's phone from Best Buy. A very expensive lesson learned. Fine print or not I don't see how you can tout a no harm and no foul return policy while failing to clearly disclose that you would still keep someones trade in. I realize a bunch of pontificators will soon lecture about freedom of choice and due diligence regarding the thorough reading of all contracts, This however does not disguise a pretty shady business practice.

James

 

[Applejuiced]

I finally found out what happened. He went to the AT&T store on friday. As we all assumed they told him his phone was already sent out and that there was nothing he could do about getting it back or getting a credit. Gave them back his Galaxy Edge and his sons 6S Plus. Called Verizon on saturday and was able to get his number ported back. For his son he bought a 64GB unlocked 6S plus from Best Buy for $550.00. They told him that if he wanted to get his son's number ported he had to have a phone to replace the one he traded in to AT&T. This was the phone he was buying at Best Buy. Went to the Verizon store on saturday to straighten everything out. The store manager would not help and seemed to think my friend was doing something shady. Went to a different Verizon store on sunday. Was able to get everything squared away. In the end he still owes Verizon $850.00 in contract obligations for the phone he traded in plus spent another $550.00 for his son's phone from Best Buy. A very expensive lesson learned. Fine print or not I don't see how you can tout a no harm and no foul return policy while failing to clearly disclose that you would still keep someones trade in. I realize a bunch of pontificators will soon lecture about freedom of choice and due diligence regarding the thorough reading of all contracts, This however does not disguise a pretty shady business practice.

James

See it on the bright side James.
Your "friend" hopefully will learn an expensive lesson out of all this fiasco that he put himself in and that could be valuable in the future when it comes to signing contracts and changing his mind with service agreements.
It is what it is...

 

[bufffilm]

I finally found out what happened. He went to the AT&T store on friday. As we all assumed they told him his phone was already sent out and that there was nothing he could do about getting it back or getting a credit. Gave them back his Galaxy Edge and his sons 6S Plus. Called Verizon on saturday and was able to get his number ported back. For his son he bought a 64GB unlocked 6S plus from Best Buy for $550.00. They told him that if he wanted to get his son's number ported he had to have a phone to replace the one he traded in to AT&T. This was the phone he was buying at Best Buy. Went to the Verizon store on saturday to straighten everything out. The store manager would not help and seemed to think my friend was doing something shady. Went to a different Verizon store on sunday. Was able to get everything squared away. In the end he still owes Verizon $850.00 in contract obligations for the phone he traded in plus spent another $550.00 for his son's phone from Best Buy. A very expensive lesson learned. Fine print or not I don't see how you can tout a no harm and no foul return policy while failing to clearly disclose that you would still keep someones trade in. I realize a bunch of pontificators will soon lecture about freedom of choice and due diligence regarding the thorough reading of all contracts, This however does not disguise a pretty shady business practice.

James

It's not a "pretty shady business contract" though. But you and your friend can continue to have that opinion.

But an expensive lesson learned. Maybe he will think twice, the next time.

 

[C DM]

It's not a "pretty shady business contract" though. But you and your friend can continue to have that opinion.

But an expensive lesson learned. Maybe he will think twice, the next time.

Why does someone keeping something for nothing seem to be just fine?

 

[lakaiordie]

Why does someone keeping something for nothing seem to be just fine?

He signed paperwork stating he would not get the phone back after trading it in. thats all they need to do, its a binding contract. He could take it to court and he still would not get his phone back.

 

[JT2002TJ]

He signed paperwork stating he would not get the phone back after trading it in. thats all they need to do, its a binding contract. He could take it to court and he still would not get his phone back.

He wont get his phone back period. But, a court can find that a contract is non-binding because he could not reasonably have understood the terms. It is reasonable to assume that the average Joe would not understand a contract written by a team of lawyers at AT&T.

 

[lakaiordie]

He wont get his phone back period. But, a court can find that a contract is non-binding because he could not reasonably have understood the terms. It is reasonable to assume that the average Joe would not understand a contract written by a team of lawyers at AT&T.

I understand the contract just fine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand them. I'm sure even high schoolers could get it

 

[Applejuiced]

Why does someone keeping something for nothing seem to be just fine?

Its not fine but reality of it is he has himself to blame and not the big bad wireless company after the fact that he didn't know about the offers terms.
Weather we think something is not right or fair doesn't make much difference. He can learn from it and move on or spend more time, money and energy that he already did posting here to fight it further.
That's something he would have to decide if its worth or what his chances are on prevailing, how much it will cost, how long it could take etc...

 

[C DM]

He signed paperwork stating he would not get the phone back after trading it in. thats all they need to do, its a binding contract. He could take it to court and he still would not get his phone back.

That would essentially make it consistent with the terms, it doesn't mean that something isn't quite right about the practice itself.
[doublepost=1478720702][/doublepost]

Its not fine but reality of it is he has himself to blame and not the big bad wireless company after the fact that he didn't know about the offers terms.
Weather we think something is not right or fair doesn't make much difference. He can learn from it and move on or spend more time, money and energy that he already did posting here to fight it further.
That's something he would have to decide if its worth or what his chances are on prevailing, how much it will cost, how long it could take etc...

Well, it makes a difference as far as us discussing it, and can perhaps make a difference beyond that. There have been cases with unfair practices employed here or there where once they were actually exposed and talked about on a larger scale something was changed about them (for one reason or another).

 

[lakaiordie]

what isn't right? you trade in your phone for a value, that value you get back over time. and in turn you get the phone 'free' at the end as long as you stay with the contract/company. now to do that you have to sign paperwork and give ownership of the phone to at&t. he decided to cancel the contract. he forfeits the money he was going to get back overtime and now owes whatever the price of the phone is to at&t.

 

[C DM]

what isn't right? you trade in your phone for a value, that value you get back over time. and in turn you get the phone 'free' at the end as long as you stay with the contract/company. now to do that you have to sign paperwork and give ownership of the phone to at&t. he decided to cancel the contract. he forfeits the money he was going to get back overtime and now owes whatever the price of the phone is to at&t.

Well, the reverse of that situation is the carrier giving you a subsidy for a cheap/free phone in return for you staying with them for a period of time. If you left early then you have to pay a termination fee so that the carrier doesn't really lose out on the subsidy that was provided--basically something to protect a similar carrier interest. In this situation nothing similar exists to protect the customer interest.

To top that off all of this was within the 14 day hassle free return period which is there specially for people to be able to try things out and back out of without a penalty/cost (aside from service used basically). The devices obtained with the trade-in are being returned, so there's nothing that the carrier to be compensated for and the carrier just gets the benefit of a trade-in device for providing essentially nothing for it, while the customer loses the device for essentially nothing in return.

 

[Applejuiced]

That would essentially make it consistent with the terms, it doesn't mean that something isn't quite right about the practice itself.
[doublepost=1478720702][/doublepost]
Well, it makes a difference as far as us discussing it, and can perhaps make a difference beyond that. There have been cases with unfair practices employed here or there where once they were actually exposed and talked about on a larger scale something was changed about them (for one reason or another).

I think taking action will take him further than just discussing it in a random forum.
Or maybe there will be a class action lawsuit eventually down the road and he could get compensated.
Maybe contact BBB and his attorney general and try to come up with some kind of resolution or take it to small claims court if he's not satisfied with the Carriers response.
But its like saying I agree to the terms that if I dont hold up the end of my agreement then the trade in bill credits are forfeited.
And after he doesn't hold his part of the deal he decides that the contract he agreed to is not fair.
Not sure how much weight that can hold in court but Im no expert in law either

 

[lakaiordie]

Well, the reverse of that situation is the carrier giving you a subsidy for a cheap/free phone in return for you staying with them for a period of time. If you left early then you have to pay a termination fee so that the carrier doesn't really lose out on the subsidy that was provided--basically something to protect a similar carrier interest. In this situation nothing similar exists to protect the customer interest.

To top that off all of this was within the 14 day hassle free return period which is there specially for people to be able to try things out and back out of without a penalty/cost (aside from service used basically). The devices obtained with the trade-in are being returned, so there's nothing that the carrier to be compensated for and the carrier just gets the benefit of a trade-in device for providing essentially nothing for it, while the customer loses the device for essentially nothing in return.

then perhaps he should of asked those questions when he was buying the phone. that if within 14 days he was not satisfied with service can he get his phone back.

 

[C DM]

then perhaps he should of asked those questions when he was buying the phone. that if within 14 days he was not satisfied with service can he get his phone back.

That's all fine and good. Not really the part of it all that I've been commenting on.

 

[lakaiordie]

That's all fine and good. Not really the part of it all that I've been commenting on.

oh well. not our fault. next time the person will learn to read everything and understand everything.