Verizon can't tell a dollar from a cent

[thepixiesrock]

I feel sorry for you two, buying into the lie like that. Don't worry Calax, I remember. I remember when "word" was spelled "wourd". I remember.

[Sand]

[Wistrik]

Verizon can't do math - revisited

 

Another customer calls in with a very similar complaint...

 

 

By the way, I don't know if it's my screen resolution (1680x1050) or IE7 or both, but whatever YouTube did with their advertising is really annoying. Now this big garish AOL ad appears over the right third of the video, obscuring everything behind it. If I'm browsing video pages, the ad draws horizontally off the edge of the screen and causes a horizontal scrollbar to appear. I think their web designer needs to go back to school.

 

Edit: the ad is fixed now; they must've read this post. (j/k)

Edited December 13, 2006 by Wistrik

[Craigboy2]

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/

 

Long story short, a guy got quoted a rate of 0.002 cents per kilobyte for an unlimited data plan. This seemed to him as absurdly low, so he had it confirmed, and had them give it to him in writing. Everything seemed fine, until he got a bill in which he was charged $0.002 for a kilobyte. This results in over 20 minutes long, painfully hilarious customer service phone call, wherein our hero tries, with a patience that even angels would be envious of, teach elementary mathematics to the Verizon customer representatives, but alas, for no avail.

 

If I lived in an area where Verizon operates, this story would be all the incentive I needed never to use its services.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some kid named Jacob told me this story already.

[thepixiesrock]

Really? that's great. Keep us posted Craigboy!

[Balthamael]

Some kid named Jacob told me this story already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that is of relevance how exactly? Notice that I am not being sarcastic; I am honestly curious to know what made you think posting what you did was a good idea.

[thepixiesrock]

Don't bother Craigboy with your questions, it's just him acting like he always does.

[Krookie]

Craigboy? More like Cryboy!

[thepixiesrock]

Zing!

[Deraldin]

Craigboy? More like Cryboy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is it just me, or is Krookie turning into a less funny version of pixies?

[GreasyDogMeat]

I wonder how this will turn out. If the actual written term is $.002, and the phone representatives are SAYING cents, the representatives are making the mistake and if they are still the ones making the mistake I think he shouldn't have to pay/get his money back.

 

However if the terms are written .002(cent symbol here, forgot how to do it on computer) AND the representatives are using the terminology .002 cents then every aspect of what they are saying and reading in the terms are wrong from what they are charging.

 

I admit, that the first minute or so when the guy was talking I was thinking, "What is this guy on about... same thing!". Before he got to any sort of equation explanation I had the terminology figured out.

 

Kind of funny how it is so easy to tell the difference between half a dollar, .50 cents, and half a cent, .005, but for some reason it took a bit longer to fathom the difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents = .00002 dollars. I'm rather amazed that not one of the representatives couldn't even fathom what he was saying... especially considering I'm absolute crap at math but even I figured it out with just a few moments of thinking about it. :crazy:

[thepixiesrock]

He had the .002 cents in writing and signed. It's in one of the links.

[Surreptishus]

Kind of funny how it is so easy to tell the difference between half a dollar, .50 cents, and half a cent, .005, but for some reason it took a bit longer to fathom the difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents = .00002 dollars. I'm rather amazed that not one of the representatives couldn't even fathom what he was saying... especially considering I'm absolute crap at math but even I figured it out with just a few moments of thinking about it.  :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its because a lot of people are arithmetically retarded.

[metadigital]

It's because a lot of people are arithmetically retarded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixed!

[GreasyDogMeat]

He had the .002 cents in writing and signed.  It's in one of the links.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If he has it in written form with .002 and the cent symbol he DEFFINITLY should get a refund/not required to pay.

 

If however, it is written $.002 with the dollar sign then it is an awkward situation. It would be like going to a hot dog stand, seeing 1 with a cent sign after it and having the hot dog guy demand a dollar when you set your penny down. I still think he deserves a refund for their butchering of terminology. Verizon obviously screwed up big time.

 

I've had situations where I've bought a product off the shelf and the cashier asked for a different price than what was on the shelf. When I've brought it to their attention, they went and checked, saw the error and charged me the amount that was on the shelf.

 

The funny thing is, I wonder how many other customers are like the representatives on the phone, with no idea that they've been screwed over. I wouldn't be surprised if a huge amount of people have happily payed a bill they actually didn't owe.

Edited December 15, 2006 by GreasyDogMeat

[Diamond]

I wouldn't be surprised if a huge amount of people have happily payed a bill they actually didn't owe. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is why they are so reluctant to admit the mistake. Imagine how much of these customers would ask for a refund.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Diamond

[Enoch]

A verbal contract is still a contract, too. It's just harder to prove in court, as some people are prone to tell fibs about what they said previously, and recall can sometimes be a little sketchy. But, it is still a contract.

 

The only way a contract can be voided, outside the parties agreeing so, is if it breaches common law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't really "breach" common law-- common law just decides whether a contract exists and whether there has been a breach of that contract.

 

Verizon's best legal argument is probably to argue that the contract never existed under a theory of mistake. The idea being that, if one party makes an offer ("I offer this apple"), and the other party accepts but believes that the offer is for something different entirely ("I accept your banana"), a court shouldn't have to decide which one to screw over. Instead, the whole contract is void because there was no actual agreement. Still, this would be a case of unilateral mistake, which is generally only honored if there's some serious unfairness or if the non-mistaken party somehow tricked the other party.

 

 

Fun Sidenote: The classic case regarding mutual mistake is Raffles v. Wichelhaus, a 19th century English case involving a contract to transport goods on a ship called the Peerless. The Peerless, unfortunately, wasn't-- there were 2 ships called "Peerless," both slated to depart for Bombay on different dates. The court voided the contract because there was no real agreement (and neither party had reason to suspect that the other might be talking about a different Peerless).

Edited December 15, 2006 by Enoch

[metadigital]

A verbal contract is still a contract, too. It's just harder to prove in court, as some people are prone to tell fibs about what they said previously, and recall can sometimes be a little sketchy. But, it is still a contract.

 

The only way a contract can be voided, outside the parties agreeing so, is if it breaches common law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't really "breach" common law-- common law just decides whether a contract exists and whether there has been a breach of that contract.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rules Lawyer ... :D

 

My antecedent should have been the subject, and vice versa, then?