Ramsay v BCE Inc. Running head: ARTICLE ANALYSIS, VERBAL CONTRACTS Business Law in the News Ramsay v BCE Inc. 20F_LAW1702_312 Ramsay v BCE Inc. Article (Also listed in references): Erica Johnson, Bell customer wins court battle over contract, CBC website. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bell-customer-wins-court-battle-over-contract-1.4635118 Posted: Apr 29, 2018 8:00 PM ET Intro A seemingly small verbal guarantee from a customer service representative is considered a legally enforceable contract. This is because a judge determined to ‘demonstrate the essential elements of a contract, Offer, acceptance, consideration and intent to create legal relations.” In the past verbal contracts have been enforced in court before, one example of this being Chiu v. Lam 2016, BSCS 299 Summary A Toronto man named David Ramsay called Bell customer service to discuss rates for FIBE internet services that he had purchased from them. A verbal contract was agreed to; $112.90/month on a 24-month term, but upon receiving a copy of the contract Ramsay realized that the terms that were agreed to verbally were not reflected within the terms of the written contract sent to him. Bell maintains that they are allowed to increase the term prices referring to a section of the terms of service within the confirmation email allowing Bell to make changes to the contract with 30 days’ notice, as well as a monthly increase of $5; also stated within the confirmation email. Ramsay Ramsay v BCE Inc. himself maintains his position that the representative that he entered into a verbal contract was acting as an agent on behalf of Bell and the verbal contract entered should be enforced. A transcript of this phone call was also submitted to the court. The judge rules in this case that Bell is unable to impose new terms without a fresh consideration on the part of Ramsay, and that the verbal contract meets the requirement to be legally enforceable. The judge also notes that the court is not allowed to impede Bell from imposing price changes on customers, but that is not applicable during the term of a contract, a contract that Ramsay had proved, by providing transcripts which show the Bell representative; who was acting on behalf of Bell as an agent, entered into a verbal contract with Ramsay on Nov 30, 2016. The judge ruled in favor of Ramsay over the dispute and Bell was required to pay him $1100 (the CBC article claims the total was this amount but in the ‘Reasons for Judgement’ document lists the all-inclusive sum is listed at $770) in total for expenses incurred, as well as presumably having to withhold the terms of the contract until the end of the agreement period(24-months). The Commissions for Complaints for Telecommunication Services (CCTS) was involved during the process in two capacities: David Ramsay had emailed them initially with his complaint of Bell’s non-compliance and initially the officer referenced the same section of the terms of service that Bell was relying on to make their case; the section which said ‘Prices are subject to change’ proceeding to explain that Bell was allowed to make changes to the price because of these terms saying that they didn’t see it being Ramsay v BCE Inc. possible to prove that Bell failed to meet its obligations, but offered him the opportunity to open a formal investigation, which he did, of course, and the transcript of the verbal agreement was to be reviewed. After the case was ruled in Ramsay’s favor however, they have claimed to be reviewing how the organization looked into cases like Ramsay’s. An interesting aspect of this, which is touched on in the CBC article is the precedent for a class-action lawsuit for people with cases similar to Ramsay’s. Where agreements were entered into verbally which were then not followed once a formal contract had been drafted. It’s clear that Bell’s attempt to stop this from even going to court, and their lack of comment on the ruling shows that they were aware that this was a potential contract law issue and that this could be used a precedent in similar cases. Conclusion This is clearly an issue with the formation of the contract as the interpretation of the contract was not in question. It seems clear to me, just like the judge, that the contract law surrounding verbal agreements is clear, and that sufficient evidence was provided showing that the four essential elements of formation of a contract were met and that Bell would be obligated to stick to the terms of the contract. Ramsay not only had proven that the call center representative; acting as an agent of Bell, and him had entered into a contract verbally, but showed that there is a precedent to look into cases like this moving forward, and potentially even retroactively. Although I assume the latter would prove to be a nightmare or red-tape for each individual. Ramsay v BCE Inc. The court ruling in favor of David Ramsay shows the importance of formation of contracts with representatives considered agents on behalf of a company. His case shows that if the essential elements of a contract are present than those terms cannot be changed, which can be used as an important precedent in cases similar; similar not in terms of services and industry but similar in terms of verbal contracts being made but not enforced by one of the parties involved. Moral of the story: Stick to the terms you agree to. (And if you let someone else agree to terms for you, make sure they know they are doing it). Ramsay v BCE Inc. References Erica Johnson, Bell customer wins court battle over contract, CBC website. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bell-customer-wins-court-battle-over-contract-1.4635118 Posted: Apr 29, 2018 8:00 PM ET Ramsay v BCE Inc, Reason for Judgement document. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4446874-RAMSAY-v-BCE-INC-19032018REASONS-for-JUDGMENT.html Transcript Completed April 9, 2018 Ramsay & CCTS (Personal Communication, Jan 11-24, 2017) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4449612-Emails-CCTS-and-Dave-R-Redacted1.html Marie-Eve Francoeur, Email to ‘Go Public’ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4447917-Email-to-Go-Public-From-Marie-EveFrancoeur.html April 24, 2018 Kaila A. Dotten, A Contest of Credibility: Are Oral Agreements Enforceable? https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/40367 Posted: Feb 29, 2016
