Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Fine Print Trips Up Storage Warrior

Riding the wave of two popular TV programs about auctioning off the contents of unclaimed storage lockers (“Storage Wars” and “Auction Hunters”), Mouse Print* reader Tony P. recently found himself in a storage war of his own.

Back in 2004, Tony stored nearly 40 years of household goods in a five-foot by 10-foot storage room in New York. He paid about $125 a month to the storage company, now known as Storage Deluxe, LLC. To make sure he didn’t forget a payment, and risk having his goods auctioned off as they do on these TV shows, he had his credit card automatically charged every month.

In August 2009, Tony went to the storage facility and tried to get into his locker. To his horror, he discovered that all his stuff had been removed, and either sold or discarded. When he confronted the company, they said “someone” had come in during December 2008, and had signed a form closing down the unit. The signature was not Tony’s. And it appears that this mystery person never unloaded the locker, but rather the company did, without any notification to Tony. All his stuff was gone.

Tony went to court, suing the storage company for some $80,000 in losses, $21,000 of which he could document with receipts, claiming breach of contract, gross negligence, and violation of New York’s storage law. The judge issued his decision just a couple of weeks ago, ruling mostly against Tony, and relying on fine print in the original contract:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The judge took this clause to mean that the storage facility was only liable for up to $5000 since the renter was not allowed to store anything of greater value in the locker without permission. And since the minimum amount his court had jurisdiction over was $15,000, the judge kicked the case back to a lower district court.

With all due respect to this judge, this clause said nothing about the storage company being liable or not liable for losses of only a certain amount. (And another New York court apparently previously had struck down this clause as an impermissible limitation on liability.)

So Tony is left without his stuff, but has lawyer bills that will eat up most of the $5000 if he decides to settle with the storage company. He has just decided not to appeal the decision, upon the advice of several lawyers.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Follow-up: Deal or No Deal’s Surprise Texting Charges

deal or no deal Five years ago, Mouse Print* railed against a promotion run on NBC’s Deal or No Deal game show (see original story) whereby viewers could win $10,000 or $20,000 if they correctly guessed which of six briefcases the money was hidden in.

The problem was this: in order to play, you had to text in your answer with your cellphone, and only in fine print was it disclosed that each guess would cost you 99 cents as a premium text message charge. NBC raked in some $45 million from this promotion.

Under the laws of most states, any private venture where you have to pay a price for the chance of a prize is considered an illegal lottery. There was also an inconspicuously disclosed means to play for free. However, since that method required Internet access, and at that time about a third of homes did not have Internat at home, such a free means of entry might not have been sufficient to take the promotion out the realm of being a lottery.

Now, five years later, after NBC and the show’s producers were sued (as well as Fox for its lottery-like promotion on American Idol), the companies have settled the cases.

Everyone who paid 99 cents per call is now entitled to a refund.

*MOUSE PRINT:

For the Deal or No Deal Lucky Case Game, which aired between December 2005 and February 2008, you can file your claim here.

For American Idol’s Challenge Game, which aired Feb. – May 2007, you can file your claim here.

The filing deadline is August 10, 2012.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Scott’s Tube-Free Toilet Paper Trick

In the never ending ways that toilet paper manufacturers have found to downsize their products, Kimberly Clark, the maker of Scott Tissue, came up with a new one.

Lauren B., a regular Mouse Print* reader, says she tried Scott’s new tube-free Naturals toilet paper and her whole family swears there is less on each roll.

A quick look at the packages of Naturals with tubes and Naturals without tubes reveals they both have 440 sheets per roll, the sheets are 4.2-inches by 4.0-inches on both, and both packages contain a total of 205.2 square feet of paper. It turns out that Lauren mistakenly thought that all Scott toilet paper had 1000 sheets, irrespective of the variety being sold. But her inquiry raised the question of whether the only difference in the case of Scott Naturals was that one had a tube and one did not.

As it turns out, a little secret was hiding in the fine print.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The tube-free version is only one-ply, and tube version is two. That difference would also suggest that you might have to use more sheets of the single-ply version than the two-ply one.

Share this story:

 

ADV