Know your consumer rights!

Paul Hjul said:
because in CJ and others opinions consumers are unable to make rational decisions in their own self interest and all product choice should be removed from the market to impose the opinions of a handful of people who don't understand economics or the technical systems involved in a particular market
Click to expand...

Missing the point again, I see. I want to make a rational decision in my self interest by buying a 3GB bundle @ R299 to use over 3 months instead of buying 1GB @ R149 pm. Do the math and see who's the irrational, unjust and unfair one who wants to rob me of 1 GB to jack up profits.
 
so you want to dictate to the supplier the price and the terms for your specific usage case
good ****ing luck with that bull****

If there was demand for a 3GB data allocation with a 90 day TTL at R849 it would probably be brought out by one of the operators
nobody is trying to rob you of anything, they are selling you a product with clear terms of service that are internationally the norm and rationally connected the the nature of the underlying product provisioning.
 
With clear unjust and unfair T&C. It's not the norm with iBurst.

The CPA empowered the consumer to dictate terms when it's unfair and unjust. You just need to do that mind shift.
 
Last edited:
Paul Hjul said:
You are actually demanding that your terms be imposed on the supplier without consideration
Click to expand...

Correct!!! Because it's a just, reasonable and fair demand. Just as with any other product I purchase. The supplier can't claim it back if I paid for it. Consumer Rights 101.
 
consideration is the basis of commerce my friend (its also the basis of contract in English and most of the commonwealths legal systems)
no commerce no consumer rights
learn the basics or **** off
 
Captain-Justice said:
I'm not demanding that. I'm demanding the right to use the current 3GB @ R299 over 3 months.
Click to expand...
Why 90 days and not 94.5 days? Or six months? Or five years?

The point is, your demand is arbitrary and whimsical and not based on any developed or coherent sense of property, contract, or commerce.

Look, Captain-Justice. I don't want to get into an argument with a self-styled consumer rights crusader. As I've said before, consumers need a greater awareness of their ordinary rights in the Common Law. And people who work for that, as you ostensibly do, deserve support. Your energy and importunity is commendable.

What I find disconcerting, and what lies behind my argument with you, is a larger and more general issue relating to the structure of our polity and the commercial relations it informs.

In my view, as a general principle, it is highly desirable and a great social good that commercial relationships be as free as possible from State coercion. The more we can broaden the scope and extent of free economic interactions, the better. The general and catholic rule is: no force and no fraud.

Unlike the State, cell companies cannot use force to compel or proscribe actions. So using the word "force" as you do is already inappropriate. Worse - it is wrong. As in incorrect, mistaken, inaccurate. And for someone with a developed sense of justice, it is also unjust in this context.

That leaves your accusation of fraud. Again, you use the word inaccurately and not in the way it is used or understood in our legal system. Remember, the heart of fraud is misrepresentation. If your charge of fraud is to stand, it is incumbent upon you to show the misrepresentation. You have not done so.

But what really convinces me to oppose you is that you wish to use the power of the sword (ie State power, effected through policemen) to meddle in the free economic relations of citizens. You see corporations and consumers as locked in a struggle for hegemony and dominance. You do not shy away from using words like 'power' and 'dominate'

This is a view of social relations that I believe to be wrong. And also corrosive. It pits one group against another. It injects contention for Caesar's favour into our commercial relations, and thereby divides society into waring factions. It is Marxist in spirit if not in fact.

I am sorry to say, but I reject that approach out of hand.

Good luck with your crusade. I hope that in the end liberty and good sense will prevail.
 
Last edited:
Guys n gals
Thoughts on this.
I moved from security company A to B.
I was with company A since 2002 on month to month agreement.
Company A was given one month notice and last service day was 31may.
But company A invoiced an annual radio license fee in nov13 for period 1dec13 to 30nov14.
Do I have a right to receive a pro rata credit?
 
The fact that you had a month to month agreement allows you to a pro-rata credit. You paid for a service in advance but did not receive the full period's service and value, as you were within your rights to cancel with a month's notice.

It's the same with your Telkom landline. You pay for the line rental in advance, but when you cancel your line, you receive a pro-rata credit.
 
Last edited:
Captain-Justice said:
@Arthur, you're someone of many big words with little substance.
Click to expand...
Hehe. Projectionist as well, I see. ;) No answer to a single point, just bluster. It's a windy day.

By the way, your rental example is confused. Unless your 30 day contract is a rental agreement. Is it? If not, why raise it, except to obfuscate.

Also, a 30 day deal is not paying in advance. Subtle but important difference. You are not buying credit but the right to use a quantum of data for a specified period. Not credit, but full payment when that right vests. Period.

There is more to commerce and contract than the CPA.
 
Last edited:
You're spreading obfuscation by not using the word "confuse".

Whenever there's an "unless" and my argument agrees with that, it means my argument is based on that.

Don't confuse the average reader with your big words.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X