From: cooper@seismo.CSS.GOV (Dale Cooper)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Subject: Re: DISPUTE OVER A BILL WITH SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER!
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:33:22 GMT
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA

In article <1id7m9INNa4t@morrow.stanford.edu> felipe@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Felipe Guardiano) writes:
>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

Did they also mention that if you were not satisfied that they would stop
service and offer your money back or something like that?  If they did, this
wording essentially states that as long as you are a happy camper, the 
subscription will automatically be renewed until the paper is notified of
your desire to stop the subscription.

[stuff deleted]

>	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.

This is your opinion not fact.  In order for any contract to be completed
both parties must agree.  Thus far you have agreed to accept the terms of the
contract and the paper (based on your acceptance of the terms of the contract)
has agreed to provide to you its product.  Their subscription base is built
on the fulfillment of thousands of contracts.

>It sounds even stranger when we
>take into account the fact that no respectable circulation business
>uses this type of marketing strategy.

Sorry to say but to the best of my knowledge both major Washington DC 
newspapers (Washington Post and Washington Times) operate in the same manner.
After buying a place outside of town a couple of years ago, I was blessed
with receiving both papers every morning without my say.  Not only that but I 
received bills from both carriers addressed to the previous residents.  To make
a long story short, after several weeks of this nonesense, I contacted both 
papers and informed them that the previous residents had moved and that they 
should cease delivery.  Anyhow, they thanked me for notifying them of the 
change in residence and the delivery stopped.  (Thank God, I don't live in CA,
I'm sure they would have found a way to make me responsible for the balance 
due ;) ...but that's beside the point).

>	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.

You are basing your entire argument on the fact that that the paper should
assume that you do not wish to continue your subscription because you have
chosen not to pay.  Arguments based on assumptions usually do not fare well 
in court.  It is apparent to me that you entered an open-ended agreement whereas
you accepted the terms of an agreement - an indefinite subscription to the 
newspaper (I am suspect of your phrasing above "an 8 week subscription"). In 
just about all of my dealings with newspapers, such an pronouncement is 
typically proposed as an 8 week introductory offer and not a true subscription 
a la magazines which are typically provided for a given period of time and paid
for in full at or shortly after the inception of the subscription.

I am afraid that you are more than likely obligated to pay for what you have 
received.  I believe that the paper's argument that magazine subscriptions are 
different is correct.  When you subscribe to a magazine, you pay up front for 
what you get.  It's like paying before you pump.  You tell the guy how much 
gas you want and the transaction is finalized when that amount of gas has been 
pumped (since you've already paid).  On the other hand, when you pump first,
you have accepted the terms of an OFFER to buy gas at a certain rate.  The 
transfer of the product is completed when YOU have decided how much gas you 
need, not when the station owner says so. Realistically, you can pump gas until
the station is knee deep in unleaded.  You fulfill the terms of the contract by
shutting off the pump and paying the amount due.  In your case you have placed 
the responsiblity of knowing how much gas you want on the station owner.  It 
would be very costly and time consuming for him to guess how much gas that you 
need.

>	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.

I'm no lawyer but this is just my $0.02.

>
>
>					Felipe Guardiano
>					felipe@pangea.stanford.edu
>
>Disclaimer: Stanford has nothing to do with it.

I know.  It's Bush's fault!
Newsgroups: misc.consumers