Opinion ID: 1789131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: did south central bell breach the subscriber's tariff?

Text: Turning to the case at hand, we find that South Central Bell did breach the subscribers' contract when it disconnected Mrs. Epps' telephone services. Initially Bell was justified in requiring Mrs. Epps to post the deposit in order to continue her phone services. The tariff authorized Bell to require deposits where subscribers' credit standing had become so impaired so as to create a potential risk of loss in company revenue. Clearly, the Epps' account created such a risk. The account was a C credit account without a deposit. The long distance charges consistently exceeded the toll credit limit and three denial of service notices had been issued on the account. Under these circumstances, we believe the account indicated a potential risk loss under the tariffs and the company policy which justified Bell's initial demand for deposit. Further, we note that the amount of the deposit required by Bell was consistent with the approved method of determining such deposit and was not unreasonable as the complainants contend. However, Bell subsequently notified Mrs. Epps by letter that the deposit would not be required provided she paid her bills on or before the due date. At this point, Bell waived the initial deposit requirement. As noted earlier, Bell retained the power to create and enforce their rules concerning their business practices and procedures. Clearly, they also retain the power to waive such rules, at their option, either expressly or by implication. There can be no question that the April 20 letter constituted a waiver of the deposit. The language unequivocally stated that no deposit would be due if the bill was paid on or before the due date. Bell's own employee, Marchetti, admitted that such letters were generally interpreted to mean that no deposit was required for continued services. Once such a regulation or rule is waived, non-compliance by subscriber will not serve as a defense to a claim of wrongful disconnection by that subscriber. See 74 Am.Jur.2d, Telecommunications, § 14 (1974). Additionally, we cannot say that Mrs. Epps unreasonably relied on the April 20th letter. Subscribers rely solely on communications sent to them from Bell in regard to their telephone services. Mrs. Epps herself, had received notices before and had complied with each without incident. Even though she had previously made arrangements to pay the deposit, there is no evidence to indicate that Mrs. Epps relied on the letter unreasonably, especially in light of her past experiences with South Central Bell. Having waived the deposit, Bell's disconnection of Epps' telephone for failure to pay a deposit constituted a breach of the subscribers' tariff. There was no deposit to be paid. Mrs. Epps paid her bill in full prior to the due date and was entitled to continued services. Bell's claim that their decision to disconnect was justified because there was no record of the letters is unacceptable. The record shows that such letters are routinely recorded in Bell's computer. Marchetti testified that she in fact entered the letters in question under the Epps' account. We cannot see how the subsequent reviews of the account failed to reveal these letters absent some error in Bell's record keeping procedures. Regardless, errors by Bell in record keeping cannot be construed against the subscriber or used to justify mistakes by Bell's employees. Bell retains exclusive control over their record keeping procedures. They necessarily must bear the burden and suffer the consequences associated with any mistake or errors made by their employees, regardless of whether such mistakes are caused by simple negligence or employee incompetence. From what we have said, we ultimately are led to conclude that Bell terminated Mrs. Epps' service wrongfully. Their actions were neither authorized by the provisions of the tariff nor excused by the mistake of their employees. On the other hand, Mrs. Epps had complied with the terms of the subscribers' tariff and with demands of South Central Bell. She was entitled to continued services once she paid her bill in full prior to the due date. As such, Bell's actions resulted in a breach of the subscribers' tariff.