| First Litigation |
| It was reported in the news on 2003/9/19
that a passenger has filed in the Small Claims Court naming
KMB/Roadshow as the defendants for lost bus fares as a result
of the need for switching buses as he could not stand the noise
of the broadcast of bus spam. |
| |
More (in Chinese)
|
|
The Real Issues of Bus Spam
The issue is not about getting back the extra fare needed to complete
the trip as would have been argued in the 2003/9/19 case. What if
KMB settles with the claimant. Other bus riders will continue their
spam-ridden rides day in and day out. Your kids will still have to
be mind-tuned on their way to schools mandated by the government.
The whole case on Bus Spam is not about noise; nor does it concern
freedom, constitutional rights, fairness, nor justice.
The real issue is about money.
If riders could afford their own vehicles, taxi rides or company or
government cars that are free from Bus Spam, there would not be any
law suit or movement against the government or bus companies.
If bus riders now tell the bus operators that they could raise
whatever bus fares they want in order to get back the pre-1997 quietness,
would they comply? We doublt it! Business reality (profit maximization)
tells us that they would want the fare increase as well as the revenue
from bus spam.
But again, that is not our concern here either. The real problem
is bus riders were never asked**. They were never
told about the options.
The broadcast of bus spam is a manifestation of the amendment of
a term in their agreement with bus riders. Yet there was no negotiation,
no back and forth, no bargain. Bus passengers have been forced to
go to bed with the bus operators. In a reasonable court of law,
one would argue to strike down this term for lack of consideration
and for unconscionability.***
to be continued .....
** By asking, we mean negotiating, not pseudo-asking such as: surveys
and opinion polls. |
