cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

Wizard

Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

Nope.  Because you aren't paying me to be your legal tutor.  What I said was "the change isn't 'material', which is a legal term of art... I would  suggest a horn book, treatise, or a Black's dictionary if you need to do  research on what that means.... or even a 1L contracts class."  I still stand by that statement.

gixxer07 wrote:

... Also noticed you never quoted how they were not material citing the definition of material change in the contract(oh that's right there isn't one).

Wizard

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

You are correct (except the last line); BUT, your case is not on point.

In this case, the arbiter changed its rules to not allow arbitration of a case unless the patient signed AFTER the accident occurred.  The original contract merely identified NHLA/AHLA as the arbitor but did not speak to any changes by the arbiter itself.  Since the patient had not signed an agreement after her accident, the arbiter refused to hear the case.  BECAUSE THE AGREED UPON AND SPECIFIED ARBITER WOULD NOT ARBITRATE UNDER ITS RULES, the court decided that there was not a meeting of the minds on this issue and decided that the clasue was unenforceable.  Futhermore, the Court rehashed the holding of Wall St Assoc. to hold that "n agreement to arbitrate before a particular  forum is as integral a term of a contract as any other...

BeSkepticalOfAll wrote:

pharaoh0 wrote:

Please find a case where the court considered the mere naming of an arbiter (either AAA or JAMS), where arbitration was already a term within the contract, as a material breach of contract.

In Grant v. Magnolia Manor-Greenwood, a nursing home routinely demanded that all patients sign a contract forcing all disputes--including injuries, malpractice, etc.--through a particular health lawyers association (the NHLA, now called the AHLA).  That association later declared that it would not arbitrate such cases unless the patient agreed to the arbitration clause after the injury occurred.  The nursing home then tried to force an injury claim through another arbitrator.  The court  ruled that the choice of arbitrator is material to the contract.

...

Journeyman

Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

No need if the messanger is correct, in this case sir, maam you are not! You can try and argue to any extent you like sprint bandwagoner the changes were material that's all there is to it. Also noticed you never quoted how they were not material citing the definition of material change in the contract(oh that's right there isn't one).

Wizard

Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

Oh dear.  A tirade by a person that doesn't like the TRUTH.  The court system treats JAMS and the AAA (yes, that is the AGENCY opposite JAMS as opposed to the federal act (FAA), which is a statute) as equal entities.  Some people hate that one is for-profit...but, the TRUTH is that the court takes judgments from both equally.  And no, the change isn't "material", which is a legal term of art... I would suggest a horn book, treatise, or a Black's dictionary if you need to do research on what that means.... or even a 1L contracts class.  Don't shoot the messager b/c you don't like the message!!

gixxer07 wrote:

  So if it is acceptable what sprint is doing, why dont' you tell me exactly what is defined by sprint as a materia change my friend, You know nothing about the law nor it's language and your speaking of other people going to google.

When you look at the reputation regarding JAMS per previous documented cases of UNFAIR AND UNJUST TREATMENT, it is absolutely a material change if you as a customer find yourself in an arbitration situation and have to deal with a bunch of crooks because sprint changed it into a contract where you have no choice but to deal with them, and gave you no option out of that. The contractual agreement you signed stated you would agree on the FAA (not AAA by the way GET IT TOGETHER ALREADY AND KNOW AT LEAST WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT) arbitrator not the JAMS arbitrator.. so bascially your decision is being made for you and you do not have the right to say whether or not you are entering into this agreement to let JAMS decide the fate of your arbitration (if you should so have one)?

I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY AND ASK FOR SOME LEGAL ADVISE BEFORE YOU GO SPOUTING OFF AT THE LIPS. Case or no Case THIS WAS A MATERIAL CHANGE BECAUSE OF "HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOU" HENCE THE WORD CHANGE... MEANING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THE WORD ADVERSE/ MATERIAL / (SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOU).

Journeyman

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

pharaoh0 wrote:

Please find a case where the court considered the mere naming of an arbiter (either AAA or JAMS), where arbitration was already a term within the contract, as a material breach of contract.

In Grant v. Magnolia Manor-Greenwood, a nursing home routinely demanded that all patients sign a contract forcing all disputes--including injuries, malpractice, etc.--through a particular health lawyers association (the NHLA, now called the AHLA).  That association later declared that it would not arbitrate such cases unless the patient agreed to the arbitration clause after the injury occurred.  The nursing home then tried to force an injury claim through another arbitrator.  The court  ruled that the choice of arbitrator is material to the contract.

From the court's opinion:

---

Furthermore, the designation of a forum such as the AHLA “has wide-ranging substantive implications that may affect, inter alia, the arbitrator-selection process, the law, procedures, and rules that govern the arbitration, the enforcement of the arbitral award, and the cost of the arbitration.”  Singleton v. Grade A Market, Inc., No. 08-1385, 2009 WL 996015, *6 (D. Conn. April 13, 2009).  Where designation of a specific arbitral forum has implications that may substantially affect the substantive outcome of the resolution, we believe that it is neither “logistical” nor “ancillary.”  See Smith Barney, Inc. v. Critical Health Systems of North Carolina, Inc., 212 F.3d 858, 862 (4th Cir. 2000) (“It is far better to interpret the agreement based on what is specified, rather than attempt to incorporate other remote rules by reference.”); Wall Street Associates v. Becker Paribas, Inc. 818 F.Supp. 679, 683 (S.D. N.Y. 1993), affd. 27 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1994) (“n agreement to arbitrate before a particular forum is as integral a term of a contract as any other,...

---

Journeyman

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

pharaoh0 wrote:

Really?  Why don't you cite a case on point with the facts of the situation that goes in your favor.  Please find a case where the court considered the mere naming of an arbiter (either AAA or JAMS), where arbitration was already a term within the contract, as a material breach of contract. In the REAL WORLD it is the person that wants to get out of the contract that is responsible for pulling the case on point.  So, please be my guest.  The truth is that it doesn't exist!!!  Why?  Because the courts only consider an addition of an arbitration clause where none existed as a materila breach.  ...I only chuckle at people that use the People's Court and Google as their legal sources!

And on a side note.... NO, I do not work for Sprint.  I too hate arbit clauses...but, from a legal standpoint, what Sprint is doing is acceptable.  It is what it is...

     So if it is acceptable what sprint is doing, why dont' you tell me exactly what is defined by sprint as a materia change my friend, You know nothing about the law nor it's language and your speaking of other people going to google.

When you look at the reputation regarding JAMS per previous documented cases of UNFAIR AND UNJUST TREATMENT, it is absolutely a material change if you as a customer find yourself in an arbitration situation and have to deal with a bunch of crooks because sprint changed it into a contract where you have no choice but to deal with them, and gave you no option out of that. The contractual agreement you signed stated you would agree on the FAA (not AAA by the way GET IT TOGETHER ALREADY AND KNOW AT LEAST WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT) arbitrator not the JAMS arbitrator.. so bascially your decision is being made for you and you do not have the right to say whether or not you are entering into this agreement to let JAMS decide the fate of your arbitration (if you should so have one)?

I SUGGEST YOU CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY AND ASK FOR SOME LEGAL ADVISE BEFORE YOU GO SPOUTING OFF AT THE LIPS. Case or no Case THIS WAS A MATERIAL CHANGE BECAUSE OF "HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOU" HENCE THE WORD CHANGE... MEANING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THE WORD ADVERSE/ MATERIAL / (SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOU)...

Wizard

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

Really?  Why don't you cite a case on point with the facts of the situation that goes in your favor.  Please find a case where the court considered the mere naming of an arbiter (either AAA or JAMS), where arbitration was already a term within the contract, as a material breach of contract. In the REAL WORLD it is the person that wants to get out of the contract that is responsible for pulling the case on point.  So, please be my guest.  The truth is that it doesn't exist!!!  Why?  Because the courts only consider an addition of an arbitration clause where none existed as a materila breach.  ...I only chuckle at people that use the People's Court and Google as their legal sources!

And on a side note.... NO, I do not work for Sprint.  I too hate arbit clauses...but, from a legal standpoint, what Sprint is doing is permissible.  It is what it is...

BeSkepticalOfAll wrote:

pharaoh0 wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Sprint is legally correct here.

Chuckle.  Please cite the court case in which a drastic change in the arbitration clause--to force all arbitration through the seller's buddy--was ruled "not material" to the contract.

Unless you can cite such a court case, I have to presume you are a Sprint employee.

Journeyman

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

BeSkepticalOfAll wrote:

pharaoh0 wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Sprint is legally correct here.

Chuckle.  Please cite the court case in which a drastic change in the arbitration clause--to force all arbitration through the seller's buddy--was ruled "not material" to the contract.  That is what Sprint would need in order to be "legally correct" as you say.

Unless you can cite such a court case, I have to presume you are a Sprint employee.

    Glad someone said it..!! lol .. a little inside mole trying to change the minds of the informed by saying i'm afraid sprint is right... LMFAO .. they aren't even close to right in this situation.

Journeyman

Re: Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

pharaoh0 wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Sprint is legally correct here.

Chuckle.  Please cite the court case in which a drastic change in the arbitration clause--to force all arbitration through the seller's buddy--was ruled "not material" to the contract.  That is what Sprint would need in order to be "legally correct" as you say.

Unless you can cite such a court case, I have to presume you are a Sprint employee.

Highlighted
Journeyman

Administrative Fee Change & Contract Cancelation

I received a call last evening from a Sprint executive.

They finally agreed to eliminate my ETF.

I did not challenge it based on the Admin Fee.

I challenged based on the changes in the arbitration clause as they are material changes.

I based my right to cancellation based on their language in the contract.

Courts have consistently held that since the party who drafted the contract knows their own intentions,

they can not make a claim for the "benefit of the doubt", based on a reasonable interpretation, where there

is ambiguity in the language that they themselves drafted..

The letter of the contract rules at that point.

The Courts basically say, "If that's what you meant, the contract would have said that."

A contract says what it is and US law has settled precedent in this case.

An informed consumer is a corporations worst enemy.

An informed consumer with legal representation doesn't get screwed.