nice to know I am a 12%'er

Have them come out and try to get a signal, if they can't maybe they won't make you pay

He hasn’t whined to anyone his only asking Direct TV to fulfil its part of the contract to provide him with TV. The contract seems to have said that his entitled to TV anywhere in the United States and that he can move residence during the contract and have a dish fitted at the new address. Nowhere in the contract does it seem to state that he must first determine he can get reception before moving.

Brag: Didn't vote till today.

yes, this is exactly how I thought it would play out.

they are nice, but like I said earlier itt, they make a bad assumption that everyone can get the service.

I'm not sure how anyone benefits from DirecTV charging OP the cancellation fee - they lose him forever as a customer if they do - he can't even get the service anyway - and look how happy OP is about DirecTV's customer service! (which, btw, does matter to people w/r/t which multichannel operator they sign a contract with).

Question - replace Time Warner with DirecTV in OP's situation - say you were in a 2-year guaranteed contract with a $500 early-termination fee - what would your expectation be if you moved to an area with no Time Warner service w/r/t the fee? And what do you think Time Warner's policy is on this?

-Al

Oh, also F Time Warner (just a general sentiment, nothing to do with the above hypothetical).

-Al

I definitely think their contract is enforceable. But keeping a future customer is better than selling your debt to a collection agency for $50.

I think everyone assuming that the contract is extremely explicit on this issue doesn't really know much about contracts.

-Al

Also the last thing DTV wants is for the cable companies to use it against them in an ad campaign if they were to be hardasses about this.

Definitely true - Cable overall has actually declined in total video subs this past year, while Satellite and Fios/U-verse have all grown. (This is likely largely driven by the fact that, if you haven't noticed, most cable companies totally suck for a whole host of reasons.)

The reasons I brought up the Time Warner thing above are that 1) I'm pretty sure that Time Warner's policy is that if you move to an area that does not provide Time Warner service, any termination fees are waived and 2) which means that DirecTV is responding to best business practices and staying competitive with cable by also waiving their early termination fee.

-Al

the answer to these questions is always, 100%, yes, you owe the money.

'they' live life by drawing up contracts. 'we' live it by signing them.



the only question is if you can get out of it, and that really all depends on the 300lb trailer trash that happens to answer the phone in directv accounting that day doesn't it...

It doesn't need to be "extremely explicit". A court isn't going to look at anything other than the words on the paper when considering a form contract.
Assuming that a court is going to consider conditions that are not in the contract is a mistake.

I bet you have lots of "life experience" that qualifies you to analyze contracts though.

You are 100% on the hook for $500. You CHOSE to move to a place that you can't fulfill your contract th DTV therefore, you owe $500

Yes, you're right - the "court isn't going to look at anything other than the words on the paper".

Now, tell me, douchebag, what exactly does the contract stipulate w/r/t the early termination fee kicking in if someone should move to a location where they can no longer physically receive DirecTV's service?

Oh, that's right, you, much like every other moron in this thread who keeps bringing this idiotic point up - hasn't read the actual contract language.

And, I'm guessing it's most likely *not* directly addressed in the contract (therefore not enforceable in the 'court of law'), because if language like that were placed in a binding consumer contract, the FCC would step-in and claim it's harmful to the consumer.

-Al

Aaahhhh this is tilting me so hard you're such a f'in idiot.

Binding, enforceable contractual language always needs to be extremely explicit - why in god's name do you think contracts are so goddamn long, and lawyers get paid what they do to make sure 1) they're not missing any "condition" that might come up and be outside of the bounds of the contractual language and 2) it's basically airtight and defensible in court.

-Al

Clearly you aren't a lawyer. Thanks for "guessing" though.

this is pretty much wrong on every account. where are you reading about this contract?

obviously dtv felt in the longrun it would be beneficial in terms of positive rep/future business/not dealing with it any further etc. to let him off, good for op he lucked out and it was worth a shot if you dont mind not paying money that you owe, but they were under no obligation to do so unless this stuff you made up was actually in the contract and op somehow failed to mention the most important part of his case.

i meant to vote that it's your fault and accidentally voted it isn't. confusing poll imo

you have to pay

Heh, 198 posters voted before you, and none seemed to be confused by the poll options.

Insert "Butterfly Ballot" and/or "Dimpled Chad" joke here.

Almost as good as jumping in and saying "you have to pay" when OP already stated DTV let him off the hook. I am so glad 90% of 2p2 isn't trying to run a consumer-based company, based on the general "**** em!" responses we get here.

Well, I think a lot of people were answering what legally is youtalkfunny's responsibility, not what DTV should do (ethically or for goodwill).

Without knowing the exact details, I'm guessing YTF legally owed the money, but it's in DTV's bottom line interests to let him off the hook.

Right. But obviously YTF only gives a **** about whether he actually has to pay or not.

Has anyone actually looked at the contract?

This is the type of assumption people are making that is dead wrong in the majority of cases (not sure if it's wrong with the OP, but I haven't read anything that says he knew his apt didn't have line of sight upon move-in.) Most people don't know about needing direct line of sight to northern skies or whatever it is. Like someone said, DTV is quiet about this.

I'm sure he's technically obligated to pay, but like others have said DTV is making the smart decision by letting people off the hook.

DTV Blows.