From: felipe@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Felipe Guardiano)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: DISPUTE OVER A BILL WITH SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER!
Date: 6 Jan 1993 00:04:25 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

Here is the story of my feud with the newspaper San Francisco Examiner:

	Last summer, I got a call from the marketing people at San Francisco
Examiner offering me an 8 week subscription for their newspaper, which
I accepted.  I received a bill a few days later which I paid in full
with a check.  The delivery started on time and I had no complaints,
except that I didn't like the newspaper very much.

	After some weeks, I decided to go back to my subscription of
the San Jose Mercury News.  I assumed that by NOT renewing my subscription
of the San Francisco Examiner, they would stop delivering it when my
original subscription expired.  They didn't.

	At first, I thought their computers might be screwed up and they
would stop delivery as soon as they found out that I had NOT sent 
the money for the renewal.  Weeks passed by and I got a bill from them
charging the newspapers delivered since the expiration of the last
subscription period.  I found strange that they were still sending the
newspaper in without me sending the money for it.  However, I
decided to let it go.

	As I kept receiving bills, I decided to call them.  They said
that unless the customer calls in to terminate the subscription they
keep sending the newspaper: "we have a relationship with our customers
based on trust".  I told them that I wanted the paper stopped and that
I had a problem with their marketing strategy.  The person said the
supervisor was not in the office and would call me back.  He/She never
did.

	Now, I got the latest bill saying that I am late with my 
payment of approximatelly $40.00.  I called them again and asked for the
supervisor.  I pointed to him that by NOT renewing my subscription
I was terminating our contract.  He thinks differently.  He believes
that the only way to terminate our contract was to let them know,
for instance by phone, that I wanted to cancel delivery. I also pointed
out to him that whatever I subscribe, magazines and other newspaper,
I pay in advance for my subscription and they promptly stop delivery
if I do not mail them my check for renewal.  He, once again, pointed
out the "trust" they have in their customers and therefore I should
pay my bill.  He was even willing, "out of his generosity", to let me 
pay only half of it.  This is where it stands now.

	To me their billing strategy sounds very much like a scam.
Since the customer has to call in for them to consider the subscription
canceled, they are in fact relying on those that forget to do it
to keep up their subscription rate.  It sounds even stranger when we
take into account the fact that no respectable circulation business
uses this type of marketing strategy.

	The $40 are not a big deal to me but I am seriously considering
not paying it.  However, I would like to know if I am legally bound
to an agreement that I thought I had broken by NOT renewing my
subscription.  Obviously, the San Francisco Examiner has lawyers working
for them that had some say when they decided on this marketing
strategy.

	I called consumer information hotline but the line is always
busy.  So I thought I would ask the wise people of the net for their
valuable input.  Thanks in advance.



					Felipe Guardiano
					felipe@pangea.stanford.edu

Disclaimer: Stanford has nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers