Checking with lawyer to get out of contract. Since Viasat can't deliver the speed they promised me when they conned my into getting this joke of an ISP. They might have voided the contract by not delivering what was promised, now just have to wait to hear from the lawyer.
Posted 1 year ago
Bev, Champion
VeteranSatUser, Champion
As Bev says. Even if you are getting 10Kbps they have met their contract.
Want to get out? Pay $15/month for each month remaining on your contract.
Want to get out? Pay $15/month for each month remaining on your contract.
Yep...Probably cheaper than a lawyer in the long run, and, a lot less "heartburn" than dealing with a lawyer and the time involved!
Not if his son is the lawyer.
I don't know! You can't always trust them lawyers!
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Being that both Hughesnet and Viasat have teams of high-priced, corporate attorneys, I wouldn't put much hope on personal counsel. But people are welcome to knock themselves out.
Yes and their clientele includes government agencies, the military, foreign country's stock market backups etc etc. Good luck!
(Edited)
It is precisely that their lawyers are high priced that it is often cheaper for them to settle out of court. It is an economic consideration rather than a legal consideration.
Lawyers wear people down as part of their strategy. We the people can do the same thing, often at lower cost.
Lawyers wear people down as part of their strategy. We the people can do the same thing, often at lower cost.
Be sure to post a follow up here about the advice your lawyer gives you concerning the validity of various parts of the contract.
I always suspected that the "up to..." clause was invalid because it is too all encompassing.
Every state has it own contract laws.
This week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers regarding employee-employer contracts and arbitration. The point is that its not over until it's over. Nothing is sacred in this country until the Supreme Court says so.
I always suspected that the "up to..." clause was invalid because it is too all encompassing.
Every state has it own contract laws.
This week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of employers regarding employee-employer contracts and arbitration. The point is that its not over until it's over. Nothing is sacred in this country until the Supreme Court says so.
Let me put it to you this way. I am in Virginia and a recent governor, Robert McDonald, was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to jail. The evidence was overwhelming. He was caught red handed. Case Closed, right? Wrong.
The Supreme Court quickly stepped in and over ruled the verdict on the grounds that public officials are corrupt in general, so McDonald could not be singled out. This Supreme Court verdict occurred while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton. It sent a strong message that indicting her would go nowhere.
The point is that no matter how iron clad you think the law is, it is not.
The Supreme Court quickly stepped in and over ruled the verdict on the grounds that public officials are corrupt in general, so McDonald could not be singled out. This Supreme Court verdict occurred while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton. It sent a strong message that indicting her would go nowhere.
The point is that no matter how iron clad you think the law is, it is not.
McDonnell, but they nailed him for having a bathtub in his home and selling lettuce on Sundays.
http://virginiadefenseattorney.com/2015/09/23/virginia-is-for-lovers-and-weird-laws/
http://virginiadefenseattorney.com/2015/09/23/virginia-is-for-lovers-and-weird-laws/
Any company can write a 30 page legalize document that is pretty water tight or iron clad etc. Not only don't consumers read them, if they did they wouldn't understand a few of the paragraphs which can change meanings etc, a consumer is not an attorney.
However if it can be shown that the ISP or any company is not delivering what they advertise so that the product is actually USABLE, for its intended purpose you may have a case.
You would have to provide documentation that shows the speeds won't allow you to perform basic functions with a Reasonable response, reasonable in the mind and expectations of a reasonable person.
If i was the judge would ask you what steps have you taken to get the system working properly:
Have you contacted the provider and asked for their help thru testing service calls etc., you would need documentation of these attempts and the responses, tech notes etc.
If you don't have the above or attempted the above I would postpone a judgement until these steps were taken and the service provider is able to fix your system or fails to fix it so again a reasonable result is achieved.
Do your homework, gather your data, ask Viasat to review and check your system, document the results.
If I were your attorney I would want all of the above data as supporting evidence that the ISP can't deliver.
I specified "reasonable person, reasonable service return for a fair value provided. Hopefully you would get a judged who thinks like me, and i am not an attorney nor judge.
If the judge rules in your favor be prepared for Viasat to challenge the ruling because this precedent would have great implications for the company..
My advice is contact Viasat, get some assistance, check of your system, run tests, the speeds can't just be good from 3 AM to 4 AM, not reasonable, but at least it shows that your system is good but Viasat can't deliver a reasonable service that you should expect during reasonable usage hours.
https://weagree.com/drafting-principles/1-general-drafting-principles/1-4-vagueness-and-ambiguity/a-...
The most obvious example of vagueness is the word reasonable. It introduces an objective standard in the contract. The term reasonable places a limit on discretionary power or the effect of overly strict obligations. Where it limits the exercise of discretionary power, it requires that a party is able to explain its performance (or failure to perform as expected). Where the term reasonable is included with the aim of reducing the ‘harshness’ of strict contract clause, it introduces a common sense approach to the interpretation of what may normally be expected from a party’s performance. The standard of ‘reasonableness’ is one that is usually determined by reference to a well-informed third party with the same expertise acting under the same circumstances.
Again give Viasat a chance, document all and be prepared for a lengthy case which will most likely get expensive, probably prohibitively expensive, but Viasat might just let you sign a non disclosure and let you out of your contract...........
However if it can be shown that the ISP or any company is not delivering what they advertise so that the product is actually USABLE, for its intended purpose you may have a case.
You would have to provide documentation that shows the speeds won't allow you to perform basic functions with a Reasonable response, reasonable in the mind and expectations of a reasonable person.
If i was the judge would ask you what steps have you taken to get the system working properly:
Have you contacted the provider and asked for their help thru testing service calls etc., you would need documentation of these attempts and the responses, tech notes etc.
If you don't have the above or attempted the above I would postpone a judgement until these steps were taken and the service provider is able to fix your system or fails to fix it so again a reasonable result is achieved.
Do your homework, gather your data, ask Viasat to review and check your system, document the results.
If I were your attorney I would want all of the above data as supporting evidence that the ISP can't deliver.
I specified "reasonable person, reasonable service return for a fair value provided. Hopefully you would get a judged who thinks like me, and i am not an attorney nor judge.
If the judge rules in your favor be prepared for Viasat to challenge the ruling because this precedent would have great implications for the company..
My advice is contact Viasat, get some assistance, check of your system, run tests, the speeds can't just be good from 3 AM to 4 AM, not reasonable, but at least it shows that your system is good but Viasat can't deliver a reasonable service that you should expect during reasonable usage hours.
https://weagree.com/drafting-principles/1-general-drafting-principles/1-4-vagueness-and-ambiguity/a-...
The most obvious example of vagueness is the word reasonable. It introduces an objective standard in the contract. The term reasonable places a limit on discretionary power or the effect of overly strict obligations. Where it limits the exercise of discretionary power, it requires that a party is able to explain its performance (or failure to perform as expected). Where the term reasonable is included with the aim of reducing the ‘harshness’ of strict contract clause, it introduces a common sense approach to the interpretation of what may normally be expected from a party’s performance. The standard of ‘reasonableness’ is one that is usually determined by reference to a well-informed third party with the same expertise acting under the same circumstances.
Again give Viasat a chance, document all and be prepared for a lengthy case which will most likely get expensive, probably prohibitively expensive, but Viasat might just let you sign a non disclosure and let you out of your contract...........
(Edited)
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Sound advice. Basically coming from a customer support angle and documenting e everything.
The court's question will be:
Have you exhausted all your available administrative remedies?
If no, get out of my courtroom.
Stephen Rice, Champion
It costs $15 a month to get out of a two year agreement. If you aren't happy with the service you signed up for, you are better off paying the cancellation fee than hiring a lawyer. Viasat doesn't guarantee speeds and it is spelled out in the agreement you signed up for.
On the other hand, Viasat has over billed numerous customers many times and it is well documented on this forum and even acknowledged by the good people at corporate. A greedy lawyer could make a nice chunk of change if he or she was to go after Viasat with a class action lawsuit for over billing.
But to get a lawer to sue because you think speeds are guaranteed is just downright silly. Nothing is guaranteed with Viasat and it was cost you more than $300 in lawyer fees for you to get the same answer we are telling you.
On the other hand, Viasat has over billed numerous customers many times and it is well documented on this forum and even acknowledged by the good people at corporate. A greedy lawyer could make a nice chunk of change if he or she was to go after Viasat with a class action lawsuit for over billing.
But to get a lawer to sue because you think speeds are guaranteed is just downright silly. Nothing is guaranteed with Viasat and it was cost you more than $300 in lawyer fees for you to get the same answer we are telling you.
GabeU, Champion
How do you mean "over billed"? Just curious. Do you mean actually charging more than they're supposed to?
Stephen Rice, Champion
GabeU, Champion
Ah, that. I remember that. That was a mistake, though.
Stephen Rice, Champion
All instances of over billing are mistakes. It doesn't make it right.
(Edited)
VeteranSatUser, Champion
Stephen. That statement is probably your all time most accurate on here :)!
Stephen Rice, Champion
I wonder if lawyers pay some sort of commision for bringing them a profitable class action lawsuit.
Typically the lawyer is the only person who makes any money. The affected parties usually only get a few dollars each.
Typically the lawyer is the only person who makes any money. The affected parties usually only get a few dollars each.
VeteranSatUser, Champion
That's correct. Companies will settle class action suits, but nothing very substantial will come out of it, because it will be distributed over a lot of impacted parties. And often, it won't be money. It could be credits for service, a small discount on a bill, etc.
GabeU, Champion
I was involved in a CAS once. Got a free computer out of it, too. That's not the norm, of course, but it was nice, that's for sure. Heck, I didn't even know about it until I got a notice in the mail one day, and it was over a decade since I had purchased the item included in the suit, and which I had no problem with. LOL.
Stephen Rice, Champion
You result certainly was rare.
I've been involved in a few class action lawsuits. I think the last one was with Straight Talk. I think they were advertising unlimited data but were cutting off accounts after using 2.5 gb of data. There was no mention of this in the Straight Talk terms at the time. This was about 10 years ago and I think I made enough money from that lawsuit to buy lunch at Subway.
Typically, the only people who make money in class action lawsuits are the layers.
I've been involved in a few class action lawsuits. I think the last one was with Straight Talk. I think they were advertising unlimited data but were cutting off accounts after using 2.5 gb of data. There was no mention of this in the Straight Talk terms at the time. This was about 10 years ago and I think I made enough money from that lawsuit to buy lunch at Subway.
Typically, the only people who make money in class action lawsuits are the layers.
Bev, Champion
99% of the time, it's better to simply talk with the management of the company involved. Most of the time, if you behave reasonably and, don't scream and curse at them, they will work with you. Okay no sub sandwich but, odds are you can solve the problem without a lawyer.
Stephen Rice, Champion
Amen.
Brad, Viasat Employee
I have a satellite receiver and two Roku TVs on, all 3 connected via WiFi, two laptops going, on Ethernet, and my android phone is on WiFi and WiFi calling is turned on, and I am in data restriction because I've used up my priority data. Could I complain, I guess so, but considering it's prime time and kids are out of school and it's a holiday, that would be silly wouldn't it?
(Edited)
May I know how to do that?
Call the phone number on the back of the card or contact the issuer shown there.
That being said, think log & hard about using that strategy to avoid your obligations under a contract - it may cause more problems than it solves.
That being said, think log & hard about using that strategy to avoid your obligations under a contract - it may cause more problems than it solves.
(Edited)
