🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: misc.consumers
Article #5154

Re: DISPUTE OVER A BILL WITH SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER!

#5154
From: Nancy Feagans
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:17
42 lines
2608 bytes
In article <1993Jan12.002318.22101@ads.com> henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch) writes:
>prk@planet.bt.co.uk (Peter Knight) wrote: 
>->More civilised countries, eg the UK, have laws about unsolicited goods,
>->ie products you didn't order and so have no contract with the supplier.
>
>it seems you haven't been paying attention, since nobody's talking
>about unsolicited goods here ... the person *DID* request delivery of
>the paper.
>

If I remember the original post correctly, the person did not
request delivery - it was offered to him by a telephone
solicitor for the paper.  I read the post with interest, because
the same thing happened to my son last year with the LA Daily
News.
 
A telephone solicitor called and asked him to try the paper
FREE for 30 days.  If, at the end of that period he liked it
and wished it to continued, he was told he *must call* and
request continued delivery or the paper would be stopped.
Well, the paper kept coming, and after a week or two so did a
bill.  He called them...and called them...and called them.
Spoke with everyone short of the Prez of the paper.  No luck.
They insisted he owed 20-some dollars, and turned it over to a 
collection agency.  He tried in writing, and via phone calls,
to resolve the problem.  He alleged (correctly) that the
Daily News had not upheld their end of the contract by not
stopping the paper as had been promised by the solicitor.
One Daily News rep had the gall to tell him "Well after all,
we're not responsible for what a hired telephone solicitor
promises".  Oh yeah?  Then who is?

The harassment finally stopped when the paper and the collection
agency received a letter from my son's attorney.  Now he's
a lot wiser, and NEVER responds to telephone solicitations of 
any kind.

-- 

Nancy J. Feagans     (818) 306-6423
Jet Propulsion Lab   nancy@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1993Jan12.171706.18893@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!ufo!hayduke!nancy
References: <1993Jan7.012652.8731@ads.com> <prk.726482825@polaris> <1993Jan12.002318.22101@ads.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!ufo!hayduke!nancy
From: nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans)
Subject: Re: DISPUTE OVER A BILL WITH SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER!
Message-ID: <1993Jan12.171706.18893@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Sender: usenet@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (For NNTP so rrn will be able to post)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hayduke
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
References: <1993Jan7.012652.8731@ads.com> <prk.726482825@polaris> <1993Jan12.002318.22101@ads.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:17:06 GMT
Lines: 42