by Richard Serra

Created on: October 28, 2007

Binding contracts of any kind are fine as long as both parties live up to what has been signed for. But what is a customer suppose to do when a provider fails to provide the service agreed on as specified by the holders of these contracts?

Since they all claim to be the top in every aspect of service and reliability, we the consumer are quick to realize those claims are false and misleading, therefore should be allowed to cancel the contract if the provider fails to rectify any particular problem, or if they cannot provide the service that was agreed upon.

One provider, our first, failed to satisfy us with reliable phones as a replacement for those that failed. Instead of offering a new replacement even though the new phone that was provided failed, they replaced it with a refurbished or non refurbished used phone, which by the way in four exchanges all had failed.

The connect rate being almost at 50% was almost intolerable, and yet the company failed to recognize the complaints and simply continued to offer feeble explanations as to why they were having so much trouble with the phones and the service offered.

After many attempts to get a remedy for our problems, we agreed to simply stop paying for the contract. This was a big mistake as they hit right below the belt by putting us on the radar as bad credit risks.

So if contracts are put into place to protect both parties, one has to wonder who protects the consumer as these providers continue to get away with putting a band aid on an injury that requires a cast if I may draw an example.

What makes these providers so immune for having to handle problems that continually crop up without properly addressing them so as to satisfy the consumer's end of the contract signed for?

With most contracts, it almost takes an attorney to understand all the loopholes these companies provide for themselves. Satisfaction guaranteed should be the deciding factor in holding a consumer hostage to a very unreliable provider, and if a customer isn't satisfied, they should have the option of finding satisfaction elsewhere, and the provider should honor the request that the contract be terminated for the reasons that the consumer has presented.

However, if a provider does indeed live up to the letter of the contracts offered, then it is up to the consumer to understand that any contract that is offered and accepted will remain binding to the last day of that agreement. But we all know almost all providers seem to fail us one way or another, and if our government were to step in to enforce the consumers rights for getting what they paid for, then perhaps a great deal of those who simply stopped paying would still have a good credit standing.

To me, a company that holds you to a contract when in fact they are providing inadequate service is like slapping you in the face, and then take you to court to sue you for hurting their hand by slapping you.

By looking over the contract thoroughly, and by looking for any loopholes that will provide the provider the advantage with the contract offered, I would bet there would be a lot more cell users opting to buy a phone outright so as to be able to try different providers until they are satisfied they found one that fits their needs and provide the satisfaction that should be guaranteed anyway.

Learn more about this author, Richard Serra.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.