Rogers refusing to give a copy of my contract

[live_strong]

The advertised capacity of the network is 7.2 mbps. That implies a significance as to its use, in this case, that is it is usable. It is not, as 0.2 mbps is not significant to that use. Therefore, by definition, it is false advertising.

the capacity is advertised as "UP TO". again, "UP TO".

[RogersUser1]

That doesn't make any sense. What if a bank did that? You take out a loan and then when it should be payed off they say no. You ask for their signed copy of the contract but they say, "no, you have your own." That's not exactly the same thing, but it's the same idea. It works both ways too. What if some scammer changed his contract? If they don't have the real contract that he signed then how can they prove it's a fake? They don't sign your copy.

Exactly, its up to both parties to retain copies of the contract. For the protection of both. If it was up to customer than that is exactly what would happen, mass scams.

the capacity is advertised as "UP TO". again, "UP TO".

What is implied is just as important. What is technically or literally correct, does not excuse it, as posted from the Competition Act.

[emann56]

I'm confused as to why they are refusing. I called up rogers just now to have a copy of my contract. They said no problem and they are sending it in the mail. Should get it within 3-5 days.

[B407]

I'm confused as to why they are refusing. I called up rogers just now to have a copy of my contract. They said no problem and they are sending it in the mail. Should get it within 3-5 days.

Because most reps AND managers don't know the process of retrieving an old contract.

[live_strong]

What is implied is just as important. What is technically or literally correct, does not excuse it, as posted from the Competition Act.

what is implied by the words "up to"?

[ircu]

I'm really sure why people support a company that behaves in this way. For some people, it seems that it is actually an acceptable business practice that they give less than 5% of their advertised capacity. Incredible. The water company doesn't guarantee any set flow rate either, so I guess it would be ok to get only a tiny trickle of water to your home? No wonder Canada is considered the least competitive and more expensive mobile industry in the entire OECD world. The sad part is that we are willing to accept it. Hopefully our government stops protective Canadian telecom companies and allows foreign competition to enter the market, we are badly in need of it.



Then enjoy reading it. The information I posted, was provided to me by a friend who is a lawyer. This same person got out of their cell phone contract by exactly the same mechanism. In their case, no signed contract existed and therefore the provider had no choice but to allow the cancellation. Contracts require consent, not just information about a person.



Something can be technically true, but also misleading. If that is the case, it is false advertising. From the federal competition bureau on misleading advertising:

B. The General Impression Test

Section 52(4) requires a court to take into account the general impression conveyed by a represen-tation, in addition to its literal meaning. This test applies only to offences under sections 52(1)(a ) - general misleading representations, 52(1)(b) - performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests, 52(1)(c) - misleading warranty or guarantee representations and 52(1)(d) - ordinary price representations.

The application of the general impression test is particularly important where:

The representation is literally or technically true but creates a false impression, for example where the advertised results of a test of a product may not be significant to its use or efficacy but the representation makes it appear otherwise (see Inappropriate Claims, chapter 3);

The advertised capacity of the network is 7.2 mbps. That implies a significance as to its use, in this case, that is it is usable. It is not, as 0.2 mbps is not significant to that use. Therefore, by definition, it is false advertising.

Had you not signed the contract at the store you would not have the service therefore you agreed and signed the contract. End of story. Also if you are not a lawyer stop posting legal details you know nothing about. And we all have "friends" who think they are lawyers.

[ceredon]

Had you not signed the contract at the store you would not have the service therefore you agreed and signed the contract. End of story. Also if you are not a lawyer stop posting legal details you know nothing about. And we all have "friends" who think they are lawyers.

a) It is very possible to have the service without a signed contract if the rep screwed up and forgot to get the signature. Reps aren't always the 'top of the class' type people, so screw ups are not uncommon. Subsequently, this is why it would be reasonable for Rogers to be able to provide the only signed copy of said contract, if it exists. Not everyone just trusts what Rogers says.

b) Why do you continue telling people what not to post? It is very arrogant and it is not your position to decide what others should post.

c) Nothing wrong with posting 'legal details' without being a lawyer unless one also claims to be a lawyer. Educating oneself, even as a layman, is a good thing. Being ignorant of the law only makes you ignorant. Being ignorant shouldn't be a goal in one's life. Even a Rogers employee should agree with that. Personally, I've been casually acquainted with a few Rogers reps at the Rogers call centre in Kitchener. Judging from some off the cuff comments from them, it seems it isn't unusual for people in their office to be quite familiar with labour laws and regulations, for whatever reasons. I guess some Rogers employees understand the benefits of being familiar with laws that affect them...but not all.

[B407]

a) It is very possible to have the service without a signed contract if the rep screwed up and forgot to get the signature. Reps aren't always the 'top of the class' type people, so screw ups are not uncommon. Subsequently, this is why it would be reasonable for Rogers to be able to provide the only signed copy of said contract, if it exists. Not everyone just trusts what Rogers says.

Doesn't really matter whether the contract exists or not. Rogers has plenty of evidence that the OP agreed to the contract. I'm sure there are multiple recorded phone calls where the OP is trying to reason with customer relations to get out of the contract without an ECF due to network issues. That IMO implies that the OP was aware that he was in a contract that he entered into without duress.

[ceredon]

Doesn't really matter whether the contract exists or not. Rogers has plenty of evidence that the OP agreed to the contract. I'm sure there are multiple recorded phone calls where the OP is trying to reason with customer relations to get out of the contract without an ECF due to network issues. That IMO implies that the OP was aware that he was in a contract that he entered into without duress.

Not disagreeing with you and not saying the OP has a case in this instance. I am saying it is silly to say "you must have signed a contract since you have service". Circular and/or flawed logic is annoyingly pervasive on these boards sometimes (not directed at you).

[ircu]

a) It is very possible to have the service without a signed contract if the rep screwed up and forgot to get the signature. Reps aren't always the 'top of the class' type people, so screw ups are not uncommon. Subsequently, this is why it would be reasonable for Rogers to be able to provide the only signed copy of said contract, if it exists. Not everyone just trusts what Rogers says.

You really should read the posts before pressing reply which is something you forget to do.

He is asking for a copy of his contract therefore he knows he signed one and means he agreed to the terms of that contract and the service agreement that goes with it. You seem to have missed that very important part of this entire thread which isn't very surprising.

[WorldIRC]

He doesn't deny signing the contract. He simply wants to get out of the contract on the basis of trying to prove no such contract exists.

Sent from my HTC One S

[ceredon]

You really should read the posts before pressing reply which is something you forget to do.

I don't think you actually realize how ironic that statement is.

He is asking for a copy of his contract therefore he knows he signed one and means he agreed to the terms of that contract and the service agreement that goes with it. You seem to have missed that very important part of this entire thread which isn't very surprising.

I fully understand that he acknowledges signing the agreements (or at least implies).

I was pointing out the seriously flawed logic I observed.
"Had you not signed the contract at the store you would not have the service therefore you agreed and signed the contract. "
Not even are why you would think to post that, given a) it isn't true and b) you appear to be trying to prove that he signed a contract, which he has not even denied. He is asking for Rogers to prove it. It's unfortunate that you think him having service proves that. That is flawed logic.

"He is asking for a copy of his contract therefore he knows he signed one and means he agreed to the terms of that contract and the service agreement that goes with it."
...And repeat it. Asking for a signed copy from Rogers does not even slightly imply he knows he signed one, whether he did sign it or not. He is simply asking for Rogers to prove it. Saying "well, you are asking therefore that is proof" doesn't even make a little bit of sense. At all. None.

When I was in school, they taught critical thinking and logical and rational thinking too. Perhaps this wasn't universal. Carry on. It's cute.

As an aside, I recall you mentioning once that Rogers doesn't allow their reps to 'think outside the box' when dealing with customers. In all honesty, perhaps this is for the best.

[ceredon]

He doesn't deny signing the contract. He simply wants to get out of the contract on the basis of trying to prove no such contract exists.

Sent from my HTC One S

Indeed you are correct and as I've mentioned, I don't think he has a case. However, an argument of "well, you have service ergo you must have signed a contract, QED" is laughable at best.

[ceredon]

What sort of personal information is usually recorded on the physical contract? Name, address, phone number, SIN, etc? Assuming it isn't only a boiler plate document with no fields for entry of customer info, then one could make a request of Rogers to obtain a copy under PIPEDA. They might be legally obligated to provide it or face a privacy complaint.

(I know Rogers and some of their stooges don't like 'that legal mumbo jumbo stuff', but tough ****)

Don't think it will get the OP out of their contract but it might help get the info they are looking for.

http://www.priv.gc.ca/faqs/index_e.asp#q008

PIPEDA
To gain access to your personal information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, you will need to:

• Send a written request to the organization holding your personal information. You must provide enough detail to allow the organization to identify the information you want; for example, include dates, account numbers, and the names or positions of people you may have dealt with at the organization.
• Organizations must provide the information requested within a reasonable time and at minimal or no cost.

[RogersUser1]

Had you not signed the contract at the store you would not have the service therefore you agreed and signed the contract. End of story. Also if you are not a lawyer stop posting legal details you know nothing about. And we all have "friends" who think they are lawyers.

The difference is my friends actually are. And I have read the law, and posted it, which I suspect is quite a bit more than you have or others posting. Misleading advertising is a fact of law, not theory, and how it can be defined is pretty clearly defined in the Competition Act.

He is asking for a copy of his contract therefore he knows he signed one and means he agreed to the terms of that contract and the service agreement that goes with it. You seem to have missed that very important part of this entire thread which isn't very surprising.

No it does not mean that. The company can start service without a contract, for example every single time anybody orders service over the phone. People seem to enjoy the line that usage implies consent, but it does not. Also, Rogers does not require the rep at the store to prove to them a signature exists. They just take the orders and start the service. A rep could for example accidentally give the wrong copy, lose their copy, forget to get the signature (more than one signature on a few documents are usually required in these cases) etc. You ascribe far too much honesty and consistency to a company like Rogers, and you seem to take their word as law when in fact it is not.

Do you work for Rogers? It's well known there are Rogers shills who work this board, are you one?

Maybe you are just one of those people who is a hand-on-ears-and-eyes corporate defender based on your value system. Well I vote conservative and I usually give corporations the benefit of the doubt as well and I well know there are plenty of people trying to scam them, including my own. But I also like to see them held accountable. There are no corporations who have ever offered me something implied like a 'high-speed network' (direct quote from Rogers website), provided nothing of the sort, then said "well technically it can be any speed see it says right here 'up to' ". It's an embarrassment to sound business practice and ultimately just hurts Rogers, or more specifically the many people they employ. Practices like this will drive people away and you will see declining revenues and increasing layoffs, in fact exactly what Rogers is recently reporting.

what is implied by the words "up to"?

A functional network, you know.....one that functions. As you can see in the law, if a measurement is not significant to its use, it is misleading advertising. That is different that literal to its use. In this case, nobody would argue the fact that the significance of Rogers advertising is that it is suggesting you can use the high-speed network for high-speed data activities. That is the 'implied' portion of the marketing. If the network is not even close to that 'use', it is misleading.

It's like if you bought a bag of oranges which said 'perfectly ripe', and found 2 oranges were ripe but 8 were rotten, and they refused to take them back. Yes, there were 'ripe' oranges in that bad. And yes, that is also false advertising.