Lawsuit: T-Mobile must pay for breaking lifetime price guarantee
Lawsuit: T-Mobile must pay for breaking lifetime price guarantee
Class action filed over price hikes on plans with Un-contract price guarantee.
Class action filed over price hikes on plans with Un-contract price guarantee.
You're viewing a single thread.
I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.
-
Marketing promises ARE a contract. Companies aren't allowed to advertise a thing and then not do that thing. That's false advertising and fraud. Companies aren't allowed to say they offer a product or service for price X and then actually charge price Y. This is well established law.
-
You either didn't read or didn't understand the article. Multiple times in multiple ways the company said it's offering a lifetime price, which is different than a price offered only for a limited term. They very explicitly said “T-Mobile will never change the price you pay” and "T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay" etc. etc.
-
False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.
-
Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.
-
Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.
Perpetuity and lifetime are different time frames.
One lasts forever, one lasts until you die. There is a difference
-
Pedantic. You're arguing that false advertising isn't illegal. But it is.
-
As the other poster said, perpetuity isn't what was advertised, lifetime is what was advertised. Lifetime is a common term used in legal claims. It can refer to lifetime of the person, or lifetime of the device a service is used on, or other things, but it is a specific and enforceable term.
-
See number 1.
I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.
However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.
-
-
-
Marketing promises effectively constitute a binding unilateral offer, for the purposes of contract law. When a customer signs up, you also have acceptance, consideration, and intention, thus forming a valid contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is the classic case in English contract law; the principles are basically the same in the US.