Fraudulently signed contract Vodacom

[Rocket-Boy]

You're bullschitting.

Your own post says:
1. You signed the contract. Morning and evening, the first day.
2. The next day the price changed to R40 less. Morning and evening, the second day.
3. The next day you went in to cancel your contract. Morning and evening, the third day.
4. Your phone had an OOBF "during the first 7 days". An OOBF is exactly what it says - dead when you take it out of the box. Did you only remove your phone from the box after you went to cancel the contract? Why?

If you suggest that you only opened the box after you went to cancel your contract on the third day, I don't believe you. Why did you not take the unopened phone back to the shop when you wanted to cancel?

No, sir. Your story doesn't stack up. You are lying. Your own story convicts you.

They consider 7 days to be an OOBF these days.
It used to be 7 days and less than 15 minutes of calls but that was later changed to just 7 days.
All it really covers is a replacement handset in the first 7 days, after that they will send the unit in for repairs.

 

[frustrated117]

You're bullschitting.

Your own post says:
1. You signed the contract. Morning and evening, the first day.
2. The next day the price changed to R40 less. Morning and evening, the second day.
3. The next day you went in to cancel your contract. Morning and evening, the third day.
4. Your phone had an OOBF "during the first 7 days". An OOBF is exactly what it says - dead when you take it out of the box. Did you only remove your phone from the box after you went to cancel the contract? Why?

If you suggest that you only opened the box after you went to cancel your contract on the third day, I don't believe you. Why did you not take the unopened phone back to the shop when you wanted to cancel?

No, sir. Your story doesn't stack up. You are lying. Your own story convicts you.

I opened the box on the 1st day

 

[frustrated117]

I used to see that often when I was in cellular many years ago.
Generally the junior sales people would forget to get a client to initial the paragraphs stating that they had read the terms and rather than getting them back in would initial it themselves.
Im guessing that is what happened with yours.

Okay, thanks!

 

[Arthur]

I opened the box on the 1st day

Then why not return the phone on the first day when it failed "out of the box"?

 

[ld13]

Then why not return the phone on the first day when it failed "out of the box"?

Because it only had an OOBF afterwards. Almost any failure in that 7 day period is seen as an OOBF.

 

[Arthur]

Frustrated117, I apologise to you for coming down on you like a ton of bricks.

Of course I bear you no personal malice - I don't know who on earthy you are, and can only go by what you post here.

My response is in the context of a dozen or more others on this forum ... where people willy-nilly and freely enter into written contracts and subsequently try to back out of them on terms that are not provided for in the contracts termination clause. What really gets my goat is that all sorts of gratuitous accusations and defamatory epithets are bandied about at the other party, with nary an acknowledgment that perhaps written contracts freely entered into carry not only legal but moral weight.

Your contract was not fraudulently signed because you had already agreed to all the terms on each page with your own signature. No value was extracted from you which you would not otherwise have ceded, so there is no underlying misrepresentation and therefore there cannot be a fraud. Your accusation of fraud is wrong and unjust. The requirement to initial a specific term or place is merely an internal control inside the other party's admin processes, and arguably has no further force of law since you had already agreed to those terms in your page initial.

You should withdraw your public charge of fraud.

As a fellow inhabitant of this vale of tears, I appeal to you to act in good faith and with integrity. We are all affected.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Actually no he probably shouldn't withdraw his public charge of fraud.

Why exactly did a store clerk initial paragraphs in the contract, they have no right to or need to.

To me it indicates a store clerk that did not explain the contract fully to their client as they are required to.

 

[Arthur]

Actually no he probably shouldn't withdraw his public charge of fraud.

Why exactly did a store clerk initial paragraphs in the contract, they have no right to or need to.

To me it indicates a store clerk that did not explain the contract fully to their client as they are required to.

No legal requirement to do so. That's just a courtesy provided by the vendor, which in this case was not extended. That neglect has zero legal effect.

Caveat subscriptor.

 

[xrapidx]

Whether it was a contractual requirement to sign there or not - I would assume that the store clerk altering the contract like that, knowingly trying to impersonate a client requirement from head office to be fraudulent.

 

[Arthur]

Whether it was a contractual requirement to sign there or not - I would assume that the store clerk altering the contract like that, knowingly trying to impersonate a client requirement from head office to be fraudulent.

The clerk did not alter the contract. What terms were changed? None. Everything the buyer agreed remains. The terms stand.

 

[xrapidx]

The clerk did not alter the contract. What terms were changed? None. They stand.

Well - contract did not have his signature - now it does, he did so attempting to impersonate someone else.

Didn't say anything about terms changing.

 

[ToxicBunny]

No legal requirement to do so. That's just a courtesy provided by the vendor, which in this case was not extended. That neglect has zero legal effect.

Caveat subscriptor.

I know there is no legal requirement.

The store clerk HAS altered the contract by initialing the paragraphs. Terms don't need to be changed for the contract to be altered.

 

[Arthur]

Well - contract did not have his signature - now it does, he did so attempting to impersonate someone else.

Didn't say anything about terms changing.

It did have his signature on that page, as the OP says. He signed at the bottom of the page warranting that he accedes to the terms thereon.

A store clerk also initialling the contract is irrelevant at law.

 

[xrapidx]

It did have his signature on that page, as the OP says. He signed at the bottom of the page warranting that he accedes to the terms thereon.

Again - I didn't say he didn't.

The clerk tried to do something he was meant to get the client to do - he was impersonating the client.

Unless its perfectly valid from head-office for the clerk to sign where he did accepting that he, the clerk, read those conditions.

 

[Arthur]

Again - I didn't say it didn't.

The clerk tried to do something he was meant to get the client to do - he impersonated the client.

No he did not impersonate the client. The requirement to get the customer to initial certain clauses is not a contractual requirement but an internal admin process rule by the seller. The purchaser had already on every page signed his agreement.

The purchaser agreed to the Ts&Cs, which remain unaltered.

But even if we grant your allegation that he did impersonate the client, the client also agreed to the same terms and conditions in his own right and is therefore bound by them. Period.

 

[xrapidx]

No he did not impersonate the client.

But even if we grant your allegation that he did impersonate the client, the client also agreed to the same terms and conditions in his own right and is therefore bound by them. Period.

Please explain why said clerk signed where he did on a contracted which has nothing to do with him?

 

[ToxicBunny]

No he did not impersonate the client. The requirement to get the customer to initial certain clauses is not a contractual requirement but an internal admin process rule by the seller. The purchaser had already on every page signed his agreement.

The purchaser agreed to the Ts&Cs, which remain unaltered.

But even if we grant your allegation that he did impersonate the client, the client also agreed to the same terms and conditions in his own right and is therefore bound by them. Period.

Ok, if he did not impersonate the client, then surely his initials on the contract make him a party to the contract?

 

[Heisenborg]

No he did not impersonate the client. The requirement to get the customer to initial certain clauses is not a contractual requirement but an internal admin process rule by the seller. The purchaser had already on every page signed his agreement.

The purchaser agreed to the Ts&Cs, which remain unaltered.

But even if we grant your allegation that he did impersonate the client, the client also agreed to the same terms and conditions in his own right and is therefore bound by them. Period.

You know you are wrong, you know that right? Someone cant sign on someone else's behalf without written permission

 

[Arthur]

Please explain why said clerk signed where he did on a contracted which has nothing to do with him?

Because the seller probably has a very large experience of people saying that they never read all the terms and conditions despite having signed the contract, so the seller establishes internal processes to ensure that customers are alerted to those terms, precisely so that every query at the storefront doesn't have to be referred back to Legal at great trouble and cost.

None of these internal processes have anything to do with the purchaser's responsibility. If you agree to sign a written contract, it is your responsibility to ensure that you know and understand all the terms set by the seller. If you do not agree to them, then don't sign. No contract comes into existence.

 

[Arthur]

You know you are wrong, you know that right? Someone cant sign on someone else's behalf without written permission

The clerk did not sign on the purchaser's behalf. The purchaser had already signed the contract in his own capacity and agreed with the conditions as stated.

A further subsequent signature by the sales clerk in places required by an internal admin process cannot change the contract between the buyer and the seller - and nothing was changed thereby. The seller can rightly hold the purchaser to perform, though in these cases it's such as hassle to keep on arguing, so the seller simply capitulates, carries the cost, and passes it on to the rest of us.