Basic Contract law

April 27, 2008

Basic Contract law

Filed under: Bell,Computer,Consumer Protection,News and politics — thenonconformer @ 2:40 am
Tags: bandwidth, Bell, Canada, Consumer affairs, consumers, Contract, Contract law, Court, Courts, CRTC, Cyberlaw, DEMOCRATIC, download, Internet, Internet Service Providers, ISP, Minister, Montreal, networks, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Primus, protects, SERVICE, Stephen Harper, Sympatico, Tech & Biz, Technology, Telus, Toronto, Upload, Vancouver, Virgin Mobile Canada, | throttling, | Traffic

0bigbusiness1

“Canada’s leading telecommunications carrier, BCE Inc and Kevin Crull, president of Bell Canada’s residential services division, is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet to reverse a CRTC, which was reaffirmed by regulators on March 3, 2009, ruling requiring the company to offer the same bandwidth speeds to wholesale ISP customers as it does to its own subscribers. The CRTC ruling according to Preexisting regulations already rightfully requires incumbent phone companies (including BCE) to rent network access to smaller internet service providers, so as to foster competition and keep the cost of basic internet service at a reasonable level. This is a very reasonable demand too. Monopolistic BCE naturally argues that the December decision will cut into it’s own revenues nevertheless the Conservative government for the good of all Canadians now, should not listen to the falsely abusive companies like BCE, and not remove these regulatory barriers ”

http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/consumer-complaints-abuses-and-their-increase-was-so-predictable/

Look I have rightfully hundreds of time to the government, on the net, to the news media already have said that phone companies undeniably, unacceptable too, are a bad big despotic control freak, monopolistic, immoral, deceptive in reality, practice, and in reality most of the phone companies do not honour the normal, decent laws, rules, regulations. Bell Canada included is a dictator that wants all others to play by it’s own rules. Bell does not know how to respect, keep, honour the terms of it’s contractual obligations to it’s own customers, immoral Bell rather likes to rewrite the contract continuously, one sided so that it is always better solely for Bell. Dream on..

Well even if Bully abusive Bell falsely under the guise of profitability, competitiveness, making more profit or whatever, now still thinks it is a big, large, established firm, corporation that does not have to play by the established rules, rather it can make it’s own rules. I on behalf of all Canadian, Bell’s customers even now, I am rightfully asking nevertheless that the federal government, prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet exemplary force Bell to respect the laws of decency, norms, the established regulations and to even regulate next rightfully Bell much more so that bad Bell definitely stops being guilty of it’s undeniable false misleading advertising practices, unfair and restrictive trade practices for the good of all Canadians now as well , not just for the good of Bell.

Regulators need to exist cause we all tend to know big bad corporations tend to cheat, lie, abuse the consumers.

Virgin Mobile Canada 50 percent owned by Bell is no better over Bell

http://postedat.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/virgin-mobile-canada-has-this-breached-the-quebec-laws-3-times-now-too-in-my-case/

I have an engineering degree, Concordia University , Montreal 1968, and I had worked as a ReMax Realtor in Calgary too but in my decades of real life experiences in Canada the existing laws, regulating societies, governments clearly did not stop many Realtors, lawyers or even now Bell Sympatico from telling lies to the customers, others. http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/misapplications-of-the-laws-in-canada/

Imagine that Bell has been in Business for many years and was, is still too often, wrongfully guilty now clearly of misleading advertisements, fraudulent and unacceptable business practices, not living up to their contractual obligations, as I now have PERSONALLY WITNESSED, EXPERIENCED and undeniably detailed to even Bell and many others and many times too now . I had Paid for a high speed unlimited download service but that is not what I got next. I got low internet speed at a high price. With Bell you have to check your actual delivered speeds , “internet download and upload speed test” continually too cause Bell wrongfully seems always to change it to suit themselves..

Basic Contract law – Basic Contract law – Basic Contract law- Basic Contract law

Next here is basic legal, valid understanding, terms of a valid contract, contract law for all of the managers, president of Bell and all of Bell employees too. Not just for any customers. Bell had, has definitely detailed, advertised it’s Internet services to all with their terms, limitations and any customers who enters into mutually agreed upon terms, agreement with their services now forms the essential mutually legally binding contract..

1: A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between competent two parties, persons of legal age too, that the governmental court, the law of the state or province , or country next will enforce. Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept). Anyone can enter into a contract, except minors, certain felons and people of unsound mind. It’s important to know that not all contracts details even have to be in writing., for instance, certain agreements can also be made and accepted orally and still be legally enforceable. While the contract agreement doesn’t always have to be in writing, all the other elements of a valid contract still have to be met, included, , fulfilled by law. The bottom line is that the parties generally come to transactions in good faith, mutually trust and understanding, and not a one way approach, one way demands, one way relationship. All valid courts, will not enforce, accept as valid any contract to perform an accepted illegal act. A contract to kill some is invalid clearly too. A person who pays for bad drugs that aren’t delivered can’t next seek the help of a court or the police in getting the money back. Unbelievable some people still do try to do this too. A valid contract also always requires the mutual parties’ consent, which must be freely made, not forced consent, and clearly communicated to each other. Consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, lies, undue influence or mistakes, serious errors were presented. Consent isn’t mutual unless the parties agree on the same thing in the same sense, a clear “meeting of the minds. One party now presenting only their own their terms, conditions, without the other parties approval, consent, free will clearly is still not a valid contract. In order for an acceptance of an offer to be effective, it must be made while the sales, specific, fixed service offer is still open. Any person can changes the conditions of an initial offer in responding to the offer, the old offer is clearly now rejected and the changed conditions constitute a counteroffer and that now becomes part of of any subsequent agreed upon contract. I did that with Bell now too. Once there is next a final, written contract between the parties, the parol evidence rule forbids the introduction in a court proceeding of any previous agreements between the parties on the subject matter of the contract.Only certain contracts aren’t valid unless in writing. Generally, they do deal with real property, certain specific loans, debts, money exceeding a certain amount, or contracts concerning the sale of goods worth more than $500 or one that include objects that won’t be performed within one year or within the promisor’s lifetime. Bell now being unable to supply me a promised high speed internet but only a low speed one is still a good example of an invalid contract even if was a written one originally from Bell.

2: The Specific parties. The contract must always include, identify who the agreed upon specific parties are; usually names are sufficient, but sometimes addresses or titles may be used. Bell and the specific customer. Me in this case.

3: The agreed upon object. The Offer, the thing, the value, the services being agreed to is also known as the object or subject and it itself not only must be lawful, possible but it must be a definite, fixed, measurable amount specially now even by the laws of Quebec too. For instance Bell promising to deliver a customer a 6 meg download high speed internet service, where they know they only have a 3 meg line capacity is not legal or legally binding contract. Bell promising to supply their” best services “or “up to 6 megs services” is not legal as well for it is is not really an agreed upon fixed object, rather the object is not definite and most customers have take that to mean 6 megs anyway. . The object of the contract does have to be very specific and measurable. It is Bell obligations now to to clerk up any ambiguity on the contract as agree upon by the comer now too. So if Bell promising a 6 megs internet services, and Bell by law next has to deliver 16 megs to meet their promise that is also now part of the contract too. A specified length of time, such as one year does not mean the contract is still valid if Bell has not lived up to the agreed upon previously contract terms.

4: The outcome, or the considerations. All contracts require consideration, meaning each party must gain something fixed, tangible. It may also be something that is or isn’t done or given. When a party agrees to do something (such as I will paint your house) or to not do something (I will not sell my house to anyone else for 30 days) they next also must gain something in return toy make this a valid contract, they must receive agreed upon fixed payment, a fixed reward. Generally, if I say I’ll paint your house, and you haven’t promised me anything in return, you can’t sue me next for not showing up because I will not receive any consideration firstly”. Once a contract has been created, it can be determined if there are any issues that call into question of its validity too.

5: Termination of contracts. Breach of contract. Breach of contract is recognised by the law with applicable penalties now too. Contracts generally can only be terminated if mutually agree now by both parties as to what the terminations terms included. Parties to a contract may mutually agree to rescind the contract. In that case, the parties may agree on the duties and responsibilities of each party after the rescission. Bell still expecting me to pay for their internet when they do not keep their promises is a breach of the contract, an invalid demand of me. Now is the contract price set, are promised quantities specially determined, and is the time for performance clearly stated? There should be enough information contained in the contract always that, if needed, the courts likely next would be able to enforce the contract or determine the appropriate damages. Unless it is mutually agreed upon before any subsequent court demanded decision action, is taken. Fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of an important issue of the contract. The presence of fraud in a contractual proceeding makes the contract voidable by the party upon whom the fraud was perpetrated. The contract always still now binds both parties, and not just the customer to the terms, conditions of the contract agreed upon now as well. Once it is determined that there is a contract, it it still can, must be determined whether there are any defenses that call into question the validity of the contract.

Bell Changing horses, making changes, additions to the contract in midstream is invalid, a breach, still not allowed, especially without the subsequent, and pre consent, approval of both parties now still too and is a breach of contract rather. That includes Bell capping of my bit torrent downloads too on my unlimited download account

Yes a Bell contract also may end because of a breach by Bell. A breach occurs when a person, or a firm does not fulfill his or her, their responsibilities as promised in the contract. A breach may be minor or major. A major breach is one that does affect the subject matter of the contract and does affect the outcome of the contract. Bell not having sufficient equipment, capacity in place to meet my high speed internet, is a breach of contract. This is also known as a breach of a material issue. When there has been a breach in a contract, the question of damages is raised. The damages due to a party when there is a contract breach depend on many factors, including: which party breaches, and what damages were incurred. In most cases when an injury results from a contract breach, the injured party receives money damages. Such as I have in Dec 2007 from Bell. Bell itself has unacceptably cause now in the last 2 years many unacceptable breaches in our contract that I have clearly even in writing not accepted and have objected too and demand restitution of as well rightfully.Go back to a good school firstly Bell if you cannot understand and keep all of this now too.

“Despite precedents that show that contracts substantially favoring the party with the greater power often are deemed unconscionable (so unfair as to not be enforceable), lawyers stiff draft them and companies still like them. Lesson learned: Make deals that are balanced; contracts that distribute risks and responsibilities fairly. Such deals will be honored by courts and your businesses wealth and reputation will benefit over the long term. “ http://troutmanhays.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/one-sided-contracts-are-a-bad-deal-for-all-parties-or-getting-greedy-will-get-ya/

PS: “In Real Estate specifically , there it is a requirement at Law that contracts be written down in usually lengthy legal forms to avoid uncertainty, ambiguity and to be binding “. When I asked Bell to confirm the contract I had with them in writing they next always had refused to do so..

When attempting to enforce a contract, an individual or business , even Bell should always consider the effect any dispute will have on any long-term business relationship between all of the parties involved.

“about the liars, thieves, ABUSERS, bullies, thugs, proud oppressors, war mongers “

It has always confounded me as to why the liars, crooks, deceivers, abusers too often do still do think they can get away with now, next and forever.

FOR WE TEND TO KNOW THAT THEY THE CROOKS, ABUSERS TOO, NOW ARE NOT ABOUT TO STOP THEIR WRONG DOINGS. RATHER THEY WILL NEXT EVEN ESCALATE, CONTINUE IN THEM. AND THAT IS ANOTHER VALID REASON THEY DO NEED TO BE EXPOSED, PROSECUTED AND STOPPED. EVEN FOR THE GOOD OF US ALL.

THERE IS A VERY BASIC COMMON MISCONCEPTION ON HOW TO DEAL WITH ANY PERCEIVED EVEN INJUSTICES, ABUSES, ANYWHERE, IN THE CHURCH AS WELL, BESIDES IMMEDIATELY CALLING THE LOCAL POLICE..

THE NEW TESTAMENT IS CLEAR HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.. COMMUNICATION – AND YOU DON’T FIRST POST IT ALL ON THE NET.

First you merely ask the guilty, bad persons personally to repent twice, the first time without a witness, the second time with witnesses THAT you have asked them to repent.. and detail proof, substantiation is NOT required.. after you have done that you can next post it openly on the net, tell all the others.

Next God also is now fully free to deal with the unrepentant guilty offenders and believe me he will.. I have now been doing for decades too..

I SIMPLY SEND AN EMAIL, I PUT IT INTO CLEARLY WRITING, SO THE GUILTY PARTY CANNOT SAY I DID NOT ASK HIM OR HER TO REPENT.

WHETHER THEY ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR NOT TO GOD DOES NOT MATTER.

APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND THE APPROPRIATE PROSECUTION OF THE GUILTY SERVES EVERYONE’S BEST INTEREST

FOR A GOOD NAME IS WORTH MUCH MORE THAN ANY AMOUNT OF SILVER OR GOLD AND A TARNISHED ONE IS WORTHLESS.

So why does our pretentious , inadequate Minister of industry, even the past Minister Jim Prentice MP and the useless federal, provincial consumer affairs departments fail over and over again to look after the good interest of the consumers, but look mainly after Big business good welfare? and his friends ” And not the rest of us?

YOU NOW ALL DID NOTICE HOW THE LYING, BIG CRYBABY MONOPOLISTIC BCE, BELL OFTEN COMPLAINTS THAT THE COMPETITION IS HURTING IT’S BUSINESS AND YET SOME HOW BELL GROWS RICHER, BIGGER AND HAS NOW EVEN BOUGHT CTV AS WELL.

I rightfully really hate business firms like Bell and others that falsely think a contract is a one sided deal that insures they always get paid and falsely forget about the customers’ right as Bell does too often as I have detailed many time now too.. Consumers, customers have legal rights!!!

I KNOW FROM DECADES OF FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCES IN MY ENCOUNTERS WITH COPS, LAWYERS, PASTORS, SO CALLED PROFESSIONALS, OTHERS TOO, that most often now in reality the very same people who do tend to preach to others that we all must not steal, tell lies, drive drunk, that we must respect other person’s rights, all the laws… those very same persons who so readily tend to preach the rules to others, those very same persons who expect all of the others to falsely obey the rules even now all the while they most often tend to be the firstly the very same persons to break most of the rules themselves, they themselves they do not keep them, and they still also falsely believe they personally are exempt from living the rules cause they do preach them to others.

What you had never encountered crooked cops, crooked pastors, crooked lawyers, crooked managers, bad executives, lying no good politicians too? These same persons who too readily judge others, and who demand, want to enforce the rules upon the others, they cannot see the truth as to who they are firstly, they themselves are now the lying hypocrites.

When most a person tries to enforce any rule upon me I immediate rightfully do next often do ask them who they think they are that they think I now have to respect the man made rules firstly? What makes them think I have to be now their false slave too? And why do they think that they are any kind of boss over me in these matters?

For just cause someone, a lawyer now too even, some one made up some set of rules it still does not mean they are all valid, or legitimately enforceable now too! I still have even my right of free speech and I still can say what I want, write what I want too.. even about them now too. Not all man made rules, regulations even in writing are rightfully valid still in reality, and just ask any decent judge on the court of the Queen’s judge and he or she can tell you the same thing too.

CALGARY – An employee with the Calgary Police Service has been arrested in a drug trafficking operation and Calgary Policeman was arrested for drunk driving that caused an accident..

Courts Turn Against Abusive Contracts

“In the past month, however, two new US court rulings suggest that judges are developing a more sophisticated sense of how corporations conduct online and technology transactions with their customers that Bell Sympatico especially now needs to note.

“The EULAs or terms-of-service agreements are long and legalistic, the deals are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the terms are often oppressive and one-sided. As a result, the legal hegemony of the EULA is cracking. This is a good development for consumers, who would otherwise be saddled by oppressive terms they have neither the legal sophistication to understand nor the bargaining power to avoid, and for the public interest, which suffers when customers are forced to waive rights that capitalist democracies rely on for innovation and accountability.In Gatton v. T-Mobile (.pdf), the California Court of Appeal struck down a provision in the mobile phone company’s EULA requiring consumers to go through arbitration to challenge termination fees or the practice of selling locked handsets that can’t switch carriers with the customer. The court held that both the way customers entered into the EULA contract, and the arbitration terms of that contract, were unconscionable, and therefore the provision would not be enforced.The reasons the court gave for holding the EULA procedurally unconscionable apply to most EULAs. Even though the arbitration term was fully disclosed to consumers, the contract was one of “adhesion”: an agreement imposed and drafted by the party with superior bargaining strength, which gave the consumer only the opportunity to accept or reject the contract, not to freely negotiate it. As a result, the customer’s unequal bargaining power results in an absence of meaningful choice. The fact that the customers could choose a different carrier may mitigate, but not cure, the procedural unconscionability.Gatton is an important case because it recognizes that every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided. This opens up the content of contracts to legal supervision, which is great in a situation where the customer hasn’t really been able to bargain, negotiate or otherwise exercise market power.The federal courts seem to be following suit. In Douglas v. U.S. District Court (Talk America) (.pdf), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that a service provider may not change contract terms by posting those changes on its website without notification to the customer. In this case, the plaintiff sought to invalidate an arbitration provision like the one in Gatton and a provision stating that New York law would apply to the agreement, because the terms were added to the service agreement after the customer had signed up. The court held that the customer could not be bound to new terms, even by continuing to use the service, if he is not given notification that the terms have changed. Modern customers are at a real disadvantage against the bargaining power of technology corporations, some of which have shown no restraint at trying to limit consumer remedies, or even product testing and review. Douglas show courts are moving away from applying a simplistic theory of contract formation toward developing legal rules that are more attuned with the modern marketplace and balance of power. This is a welcome development, and one which could protect consumer interests and the public interest by developing rules and limitations on the otherwise extremely useful practice of mass-market contracting.”Jennifer Granick is executive director of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, and teaches the Cyberlaw Clinic. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commentary/circuitcourt/2007/08/circuitcourt_0801

“David Lazarus of the The Los Angeles Times blasts Verizon today for withholding contract terms from customers until AFTER they have signed up for service – and some of the contract terms are ones that I sure wouldn’t agree to: they have signed up for service – and some of the contract terms are ones that I sure wouldn’t agree to:

Verizon not upfront on contract terms – Los Angeles Times

Excerpt:

For years, credit card issuers have gotten away with withholding contracts from customers until they actually have the plastic in their hands — a practice that denies many people a fair chance to look under the hood for onerous terms and conditions.Now it looks like Verizon has adopted the same technique.

What really struck [Torrance, California resident Sandy Lough] was the discovery that to receive the promised discount for her bundled plan, she’d have to go online and agree to a 2,000-word “bundle service agreement” and a 7,000-word terms of service for Internet access.

This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated.

The LA Times article goes on to mention some of the more notable terms of the contract. The interesting thing is that it would appear that this is not simply an oversight – that perhaps Verizon deliberately withholds contract terms from customers until they’ve already committed to the service:

As for why the full contract is withheld until after FiOS has been installed in a person’s home, [Verizon spokesman Cliff Lee] said only that “this is the way we’ve found that works.”

What has happened to make large corporations think they can simply change the deal at their whim, after a customer has already signed on the dotted line, without giving the customer the same right? “

No large corporation, with almost infinite legal resources and billions of dollars behind them, should be able to use their wealth to put real people at a disadvantage, because it would be presumed that only the corporations had any legal rights. Bell included now.

What started as a simple phone call by me in January 2007 to Bell tech help line to determine why my internet services were so slow and sluggish next had become a major farce, cover-up on the part of Bell Sympatico. I was next lied to for months as to the real reasons Bell they rather had offered me their poor internet services to me and to many others in my city for years now too.. and then Bell had even lied to me some more, had also breached their contractual obligations to me many times too, had allowed me even to be slandered, abused on the Bell customer forums now too.. and why? so that clearly greedy Bell can continue stay in business to make more money..

and so who really cares now about the customer’s good welfare in reality? now? What not Bell itself, not the CRTC, not the federal government, not our Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not the the federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, Jim Prentice.. not any provincial consumer affairs Minister, but only the citizens, the news media, and the NDP party care about the citizens good welfare really it seems. Not acceptable for sure too!

“The ISP suppliers, Canadian corporations now even such as Bell still are big unacceptable Liars who undeniably too are clearly guilty also of misleading, false advertising too now.. (Presently I am with Acanac Inc. http://www.acanac.ca 1-866-281-3538, and do see their speed test too)

Accanac had initially mentioned on their internet site that they do not cap their downloads.. but they conveniently had forgot to also say to all of the potential customers on their site that they lease their services from Bell and that Bell itself still regularly caps their downloads.. any time they want.. when confronted with this they Acanac Inc do reply that they do not cap their downloads but Bell does.. what an absurd misleading play on words still. Mind you Acanac headquartered in Toronto did also claim that they do provide a solution to this Capping software by means of a Putty software but unfortunately this Acanac Inc approach was. is unreliable, required continual monitoring, and is presently more problems then what it is worth. But they did, do have another alternative and it is the Tunelier software, and it really is more reliable offering a download of about between 25 to 250 kbs.. the download speed varies as well and I wonder why???? It is both a Bell and Acanac problem.. but Acanac’s support services have improved…

Bell itself found a an excuse for not performing a specific job assigned to them under the contract agreement but fooled few people in the process now too. One side breaching a contract is a common, often fact of life, very common, and it happens often in in the Computer business, with Internet Service Providers, in Real estate and even with new home contractors now as well sadly, and I have often witnessed it myself.. and pretentious self regulating boards, governments are mostly useless too, and it is basically too costly to get a lawyer, it only makes the lawyer’s richer, so now the best way to deal with any breach of contract is to expose the bad guys to all, to the news media and thus really put them out of business.. and I have done that even with major corporations successfully now too.. ”

Top 10 Reasons to Avoid Breaching a Contract

10. YOUR BUSINESS REPUTATION. You could damage your reputation in the business community.
9. YOUR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. You could sever your business relationship with the other party.
8. LAWSUITS. You could be sued.
7. TIME AWAY FROM YOUR BUSINESS. If sued, you could be forced to spend valuable time away from your business in order to respond to discovery requests, attend depositions, and litigate the matter in court.
6. LEGAL FEES. You could incur significant legal fees.
5. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Depending on the nature of the contract, you could be ordered by the court to perform your obligations under the contract.
4. CONTEMPT. If you don’t obey the court’s order, you could be held in contempt, fined, and/or imprisoned.
3. COMPENSATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. You could be forced to pay money damages to the nonbreaching party, in an amount that puts that party in as good a position as it would have been in were it not for the breach.
2. PUNITIVE DAMAGES. You could be ordered to pay punitive damages, which are not limited by the amount of the other party’s losses and can be very significant.
1. YOU LOSE ALL THE WAY AROUND. You could end up spending much more time, money, and mental and physical energy resolving the breach than you would have spent performing your obligations under the contract.”
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-forms-contracts/business-forms-contracts-overview/business-forms-contracts-overview-avoid-breaching.html ”

“I was surprised this week when a Bell employee from Bell’s accounting department told me on the phone that I should obey, do everything that the Bell president, and his employee Sasha Rollins tells me to do. Dream on. Bluntly I replied to the same employee “who the hell does he Sasha Rollins now think his e really is that I should obey anything, or everything he says, he firstly is not my master, I do not work for Bell, I am not his employee”.. Bell is getting carried away with their much too many, unenforceable, exotic, extreme, man made rules now, but they breached my contract still much to often and that itself is really inacceptable still too. Clearly Bell and their executive power has falsely now gone to their heads when they even do think they can abuse any others, an ordinary citizen now too. I as a Sympatico customer that does have a contract with Bell, a mutual contract they Bell now also have to respect and that contract now does not make me their slave, subordinate, and them my master, but they are still my legal equals in the matters. They have to respect my contract side now too. Do remind them all of that too at Bell.”

The federal, provincial governments, the CRTC, Conservatives, Liberals unfairly maintaining archaic, monopolistic telecommunication firms, that are often bloated, cost ineffective, incompetent, over staffed, un-competitively managed as well is the main reasons consumer costs falsely keep on going up now.