[PLUG-TALK] Android, Chapter 2, Happy, Happy - Salesmen
John Jason Jordan
johnxj at comcast.net
Thu Mar 17 09:09:09 PDT 2011
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:57:34 -0700
Michael Rasmussen <michael at jamhome.us> dijo:
>On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:34:45PM -0700, John Jason Jordan wrote:
>> All the carriers are into rape.
>> They're also heavily into lying. The carrier equivalent of "I'll
>> respect you in the morning" means telling all the great things about
>> their service and remaining quiet about the negative points.
>"Telling all the great things about ... quiet about the negative"
>The salesman's job is to get you to buy. That is accomplished by
>leading the customer to understand the benefits in a compelling way.
>If a salesman breaths a word of negative it is only to show how it
>"really isn't" a negative (turning a negative into a positive in sales
>speak) or to provide a distraction from deeper negatives or to serve
>as a launch into why the alternatives have greater negatives.
>As my old sales manager used to say "it's the customers responsibility
>to be informed and it's your responsibility to inform them of why
>they should buy right now."
>There are multitudes of reasons why buyer beware is a cliche.
Having taught consumer law, let me assure you that "buyer beware" has
never been a valid defense to fraud or misrepresentation, and today's
courts expect even greater disclosure of material latent defects than
in the past. That the Atrix and Inspire 4G are throttled is certainly
material to the buyer, and suits would have been filed against AT&T if
they had not taken them back from disgruntled buyers with full refunds.
In fact, suits may already have been filed, but I didn't check. (It
would take a lot of research time and it's not worth the discussion.)
The issue of materiality is the slippery part. Would a new AT&T
customer have gone with T-Mobile, but went with AT&T because the
AT&T's employee or agent told them that T-Mobile didn't own any of their
own towers? The fraudulent statement would be a legally valid reason for
termination of a two-year contract without penalty, if you can convince
the judge that it was important enough to you that it should be
There are a host of other requirements to prevail in a suit for fraud
or misrepresentation. Plus, as always, the devil is in proving the
facts. But always bear in mind that whether the misrepresentation is
fraudulent, negligent or innocent, the legal effect is the same: a
voidable contract. In today's world, "buyer beware" has been replaced
with "let the seller disclose."
More information about the PLUG-talk