Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximo  If I understand the article correctly, the company sent the couple a bill and then reported to the credit bureaus that the couple did not pay it.
This is unbelievable and I am glad the couple is taking the company to court. It's absurd to think a company can put anything they want in their terms of use statement and then abuse the use of credit reporting. |
From Article:
Quote:
Their story -- first reported by CNN's affiliate in Salt Lake City KUTV -- started in 2008 when John Palmer bought his wife Christmas gifts off KlearGear.com. The items never arrived and the Palmers said the transaction was automatically canceled.
"After 30 days, PayPal said 'Hey, there's no activity here' and they turned around and gave the money back into my husband's account and effectively canceled the sale," Jen Palmer told CNN.
|
Maybe I understood it wrong, but it is my understanding there was no original sale because the company KG.com CANCELLED said sale. Of which they would then have no ground on to proceed with:
Quote:
|
The e-mail cited an obscure non-disparagement clause in the terms of use contract that states: "Your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com."
|
How can the company then claim they can "fine" the couple if the company was the one that cancelled the sale? On what grounds? I understand KG sent a bill for a "fine" and then reported the "fine" to the credit bureu and a collection agency. But again I ask, on what grounds can they, (KG.com) fine the couple when the couple didn't violate any terms of their agreement. The company forfeited the sale. Why don't they fine themselves for violating the terms of the original agreement? The agreement being, Customer gives $$ to company, which company accepts in return for goods. No goods delivered, money returned with no explanation (just bad customer service), original agreement hence was broken by the company.