ForumGarden

Am I the only one dumb enough to sign on for a web service at a low one month trial basis, not read the small print and then get hit with larger recurring monthly charge? I was able to cancel and get a refund, but still, I should have read the small print.

Lon;1474087 wrote: Am I the only one dumb enough to sign on for a web service at a low one month trial basis, not read the small print and then get hit with larger recurring monthly charge? I was able to cancel and get a refund, but still, I should have read the small print.


Not for a long time, but that's what the small print is for...........to fool everyone.

My wife signed us up to a Sprint family phone deal last year. Come to find out the "discounts" would not be applied for up too 90 days per fine print. Keep in mind there is about a months worth of fine print reading if you choose to read it. My $250.00 per month 5 phone family plan was charged about $1600.00 the first month and would be that until the discounts kicked in . Needless to say we canceled. Cost about $250.00 to get out from underneath. I will never do business with Sprint again. We were flat out lied to.

Not with a Web Service, but last year, when Da Beasty got pinched, I needed to get a replacement Tax Disc & was in the process of getting one online. I then learned that because the tax disc had gone missing as a result of being stolen I was entitled to a free replacement. I then realised that the website I was in the process of making an online purchase of the tax disc from was not the official DVLA website, but a very convincing clone. A couple of months ago I noticed a deduction having been made by Direct Debit from my Bank Account - a relatively small one, but an unrecognised one nonetheless, so I made further enquiries & discovered that I had supposedly signed up to receive a free 6 month trial of some Auto Magazine (which I never received, I might add), and that because I hadn't cancelled, the account defaulted to a paid subscription. Fair enough, as soon as I queried it I got a full & immediate refund, but that's not the point. I never signed up for the subscription, nor would I ever have signed up for an Auto Magazine - I loathe the things (phallic symbol substitutes in my opinion). The subscription was fraudulently obtained, pure & simple, but it used the same sort of small print manipulation.

YZGI;1474090 wrote: My wife signed us up to a Sprint family phone deal last year. Come to find out the "discounts" would not be applied for up too 90 days per fine print. Keep in mind there is about a months worth of fine print reading if you choose to read it. My $250.00 per month 5 phone family plan was charged about $1600.00 the first month and would be that until the discounts kicked in . Needless to say we canceled. Cost about $250.00 to get out from underneath. I will never do business with Sprint again. We were flat out lied to.


Is misrepresentation not illegal in the US ?

It reminds me of the episode of Dave Gorman's "Modern Life Is Good... ish", when he based the theme on the contractual "I agree to the Terms & Conditions" ploy. We've all seen them, especially when downloading files online. But how many people actually do read those Terms & Conditions? To demonstrate his point he had put together a bogus T&C for the Studio Audience to sign on entry, including loads of stupid things, such as agreeing to have sex with him whenever & howsoever he pleased for the rest of eternity. Well - a contract is a contract. The point is that the more detailed the small print is, the less likleihood there is of anyone reading it & this is basic rule that the fraudsters use to ply their trade.

Bruv;1474110 wrote: Is misrepresentation not illegal in the US ?


I think the saleslady was trying to meet a quota so she would make a little money that month. We didn't record the transaction so we have no proof of what she told us the charges would be or that the "discount" would not go into effect for up to 90 days. Luckily there is a 30 day buyers remorse sort of law that we used to get out of the exorbitant charges. More misleading than illegal I reckon.

YZGI;1474180 wrote: I think the saleslady was trying to meet a quota so she would make a little money that month. We didn't record the transaction so we have no proof of what she told us the charges would be or that the "discount" would not go into effect for up to 90 days. Luckily there is a 30 day buyers remorse sort of law that we used to get out of the exorbitant charges. More misleading than illegal I reckon.


We call it 'The cooling off period', but I think it only applies if the contract is signed in your home, on the basis that you made a trip to the place of business so it's your fault for signing it.........might be wrong.

Bruv;1474185 wrote: We call it 'The cooling off period', but I think it only applies if the contract is signed in your home, on the basis that you made a trip to the place of business so it's your fault for signing it.........might be wrong.
It actually applies regardless of where it's signed.

FourPart;1474188 wrote: It actually applies regardless of where it's signed.


I do believe there is a different time scale concerning a contract signed in your home and one in a place you visit for that purpose, based on the idea that you sometimes can't throw the conniving devious sales persons off your premises until you sign on the dotted line.

It appears there are quite a few exceptions to the Cooling Off Period rule.

Citizens Advice - Does the distance sale cooling-off period apply to you?