Web Hosting Talk







View Full Version : Know Your Legal Rights With Bad Co's


gordypordy
10-20-2003, 08:22 PM
It's a pity that so many people appear to be complaining about bad deals, overcharging, prolonged downtimes etc., etc., etc!

The bottom line is, that everybody who undertakes to offer hosting and or reseller services enters into a legally binding contract.

If you enter into a reseller contract with a company, they are obligated to provide you with the services that they 'promise' to provide. If they fail to do so, you have a right to seek redress via the courts. If a company has prolonged 'downtimes' this may also constitute a breach of contract, in which case you would be entitled to sue for the funds that you have paid for during the periods of the prolonged downtimes only. You may also be entitled to seek lost revenue costs if you can prove that you could potentialy have lost revenue, EVEN IF the contract states that you are not entitled to pursue such a claim.

Many people are ignorant of the fact that just because something is stated in a contract, and even if you 'agree' to it, does not mean that it is legally binding. There is such a concept as 'UNFAIR TERMS OF CONTRACT'.
As well as this, any company offering such services, MUST provide services which is of a reasonable standard in comparison to other companies. It doesn't matter whether they are a multinational mega bucks company, or some guy sitting on his back porch with rented servers elsewhere, if he wants to get into the big boy's playing ground, he is still EXPECTED to provide a similar quality of service, whether he has mega bucks or not! At the end of the day however, it is a double edged sword, because those standards ALSO apply to YOU as a reseller! But if your failure to provide a REASONABLE service is due to some other companies failures and one of your clients took legal action against you, you would be entitled to bring the default party into the action, or sue them in a seperate action for the sums claimed against you.

Not only this, many small sums of money can be claimed throught the courts very easily, without having to enlist the services of a costly litigator. Such claims are usually dealt with by way of simplified forms. The amounts and types of forms and claim can vary from jurisdiction to jursidiction. But most places have a uniform set of laws, and this applies to most western countries, including USA, CANADA, UK, European Union and UK Commonwealth States. EVEN IF, for example, you lived in Canada, and the company you wanted to sue was in an American States, you could theoretically raise an action in your local court, and have that judgement (if succesful) enforced on the company in their own jurisdiction. You wouldn't need to travel to do this yourself, after you obtain a judgement, you simply pass it onto experienced collection agents/litigation agents and THEY pursue it on your behalf, and the company you seek action against is held liable for the agent's costs. You would have to meet the initial court costs yourself upfront, but in most instances these are relatively small fees, provided you are not suing for thousands, or hundreds of thousand of dollars. If the claims are for smaller sums in the hundreds of dollars realm, the costs are really very affordable. There are also many agencies which can help you present your case free of charge, or offer free advice/assistance in many jurisdictions.

The best way to route out ROGUE operators, is hit them where it hurts. If a number of people have a similar gripe against the same company it would be wise for all of them to unite and lodge a multiple claim in a single action. That way the costs a very low, and if there is enough people, you could even employ an experienced litigator for a small fee each, and then REALLY hit them where it hurts. And ALWAYS REMEMBER, you can get all your fees back if you win your action. If your case is genuine enough, then you stand a good chance of obtaining a judgement.

ezbnc
10-20-2003, 08:27 PM
I understand your point but when most companys are not registered or in foreign countrys make it hard to prosecute. Also as most people find out the whois information is falsified. In all this most people will not waiste there time in court for 10 bucks and most of the clients are kids which do not work anyway. Also if they are kids the contract is null and void anyway so it does not mean anything. This is all my personal opinion im sure some will disagree.

gordypordy
10-20-2003, 08:30 PM
If on the hypothesis that 'most' of the contractors would be kids, and the contract as you state would be null and void, then the kids would still be entitled to their cash!

In any event, even if 'whois' information is false, there are still many valid ways of finding an individual, no matter what barriers they attempt to put up to hide themselves.
On the internet, EVERYONE is traceable.

kufel
10-20-2003, 09:22 PM
I agree with nukehelpers, a lot of those cases are so small in $$ amounts - that its just not worth the effort to bring it to court... no matter how right you are.

Learned the hard way :(

Asverse
10-21-2003, 12:38 AM
Just because someone is a minor, doesn't make a contract null and void. If a person makes a contract with a minor, and had no reasonable evidence or suspicion that the other person was a minor, a lot of times that can be held up in court against their parents.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that is correct.

kufel
10-21-2003, 12:53 AM
Asverse, you are correct on fine points, but who would take a minor or his parents to court over a $10 or so service?

Asverse
10-21-2003, 01:05 AM
I agree, the wouldn't over something like that.

I was just commenting that you could indeed pursue the parents if you choose.

tfc
10-21-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Asverse
Just because someone is a minor, doesn't make a contract null and void. If a person makes a contract with a minor, and had no reasonable evidence or suspicion that the other person was a minor, a lot of times that can be held up in court against their parents.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe that is correct.

Hi Asverse

In most U.S. states at least, parents are generally not liable for any contract made by their minor children. You're right that a contract is not void simply because a minor is a party to it; but the contract is voidable (subject to disaffirmation) by the minor (with a few exceptions).

Asverse
10-21-2003, 02:02 PM
Thanks for that clarification tfc. I wasn't exactly sure if that was the way it worked .

innova
10-21-2003, 10:45 PM
Careful with the term contract.

Are we talking a written agreement? Or merely you agreeing to pay and they agreeing to provide service? (or vice versa). Naturally, I would expect a written contract to be what you are talking about, not just clicking "OK you agree to these terms" on an order form.

tfc
10-22-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by innova
Careful with the term contract.

Are we talking a written agreement? Or merely you agreeing to pay and they agreeing to provide service?

Neither of the above has more or less legal weight, provided that they each satisfy the necessary offer + acceptance, supported by consideraton (promissory estoppel notwithstanding). A contract need not be a "written agreement," except that it be within the Statute of Frauds (e.g., sales of goods of $500 or more per the UCC).

Put another way: I'll take a verbally blurted "I accept" supported by consideration over any writing for which there is no consideration.