Consumer Corner : The "Con" in Today’s Contracts

The definition of a contract is: A legally binding arrangement or agreement between parties. Question: Can anyone explain why the “Con”-tracts of today are more one sided than ever before? Also, when did these one-sided contracts become legal? It does not mater weather it is the business, sports, consumer, or entertainment industries; It seems that the only way to get a fair, balanced, or even favorable contract is if you either hold an equal position in regards to money or power to the company or business you are signing a contract with, or you have the leverage of competition to force a company or person to offer a fair contract.

What I mean by fair is not only a legally binding arrangement, but also a contract that governs the agreed responsibilities of all parties involved. Example: Most cell phone contracts now have a cancellation fee clause the forces the user to pay either a full years cost or the total remaining cost of the contract period to end their service with that company. The problem: this applies even if the cell phone company has failed to provide satisfactory service to the customer. Why does the company according the contract still get the money for the full “Con”-tract period even if they are the ones that have defaulted? Consumers used to have the power to end their use of a product or service in the event that the product or service did not perform properly.

In addition, why are companies allowed to change the product or service itself during the “Con”-tract period? This is being done without notifying the other party involved or giving the other party involved the option of canceling the contract at no charge because of the change. Example: A major satellite TV company changed its service and removed channels from its regular channel line up to make room more NFL channels during football season. Every customer of this service does not watch football, so those customers are just screwed out of channels that they previously received.

In sports most are familiar with the T.O. saga. He was penalized harshly and correctly for all of his actions, but you would be a fool to believe that he was the only one who had fault in that situation. The organization and coach did some dirt to, but there was noting in his “Con”-tract that penalized them for their wrong doings.

Companies, employers, an organizations are “getting away with murder” and it seems no one is saying anything about it. Where are the people and agencies that are standing for the rights of the little man? Why is there not anyone in the government or national media drawing attention to these horrors? I just listed a few, there are thousands of people who have been surprised be the fine print clauses in their “Con”-tracts. I’m pretty sure it is because they are all controlled and paid by these same companies so they will be fired if they do. Will here is one place for you to speak out and if nothing else inform and warn other people of the crap that these companies are pulling.