Quote Originally Posted by WorldIRC View Post
Is there any part of the Rogers Terms that allow private dealers to make their own terms and conditions?
Sure, basically the part where it says anything that is said/written that conflicts with the ToS is overridden by the ToS (thereby making obvious that anything else is not overridden by the ToS and is thus fair game.)

Moving away from focusing on the ToS (the "Terms" as defined in the ToS) and considering what would happen if a rep's verbal representation conflicted with the "Materials" is a more interesting question.

And the BR policy would be a Material methinks.

Since the ToS don't preclude an agent from modifying the Materials a Rog rep/agent could well modify such a term. (And let's face it, were the shoe on the other foot - "But the agent said that my price would be website-price minus $3!" ... we'd all sure want to hold them to that verbal representation, right?!)

So I guess that if an agent actually said the reduced BR cutoffs, and it could be proven that they said that (or wrote it on the receipt as in the immediate case), it would be upheld (though on the bottom of the receipt suggests it was added after money had changed hands and IMO the contract had been fully constructed and making the modified BR cutoff an attempted, unfavourable modification of a material term!)

But I wonder why a 'lone rep' would be writing these reduced cutoffs (or is this an actual store/region policy?), and does Rog allow that modification of a 'policy' of theirs anyway ... or perhaps was the rep just mistaken in their recollection of what the usual cutoff metrics are? ("Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor)

How "close knit" are authorized Rogers agents when it comes to offering Rogers services / legalities?
Don't know that it would matter - to some extent, when it comes to the 'upholdability' of a term of a contract, one thing that is examined is what is it reasonable for a buyer to think and since no (normal) buyer is going to be savvy to the nuanced differences in the corp/corp-store/dealer/various-dealer-agreements (consider how: to most cx's a Rog store is just a Rog store) I don't think that such nuances would have any play ... excepting if a store/agent were acting expressly against a Rog policy ... in that case the official prohibition, I would suspect, would only benefit the buyer (were the existence of the prohibition to come to light!).

E.G, can Telephone Booth make their own return policy that conflicts with Rogers own policy (for the worse).
IMO anything except the "Terms" (aka ToS + referenced materials) is ostensibly game for modification.

Sure, my "service agreement" is with Rogers Wireless, but is my hardware purchase from Rogers Wireless, or is it from Tbooth, an agent of Rogers?
AIUI it's all Rog - TBooth et al are all just Agents, I would expect.

In this aspect, Telus has a "better" policy. Telus offers NO buyers remorse period for the contract.
Curious logic there, mate.

Any buyer's remorse on the contract is SOLELY up to the dealer where the phone was purchased from. Yes, it leads to inconsistencies between both corporate stores AND private dealers, but at least when the agent says no, the answer is no. Furthermore, no contract return policy is stated anywhere.
Icky. Inconsistent. For the cases that do give a BR, how are the details going to be recorded - scribbled on receipt? How can a cx compare BR policies as part of the basket of what they get from one provider to the next, if there's no written (public!) description?