– awarded $850,Wholesale Air Max Tn,000 in damages Justice Rishi Persaud on Friday ruled against the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company,Cheap NFL Jerseys China Wholesale, and awarded damages in excess of $850,000 to James Samuels who took the telecommunications giant to court after the disruption of his DSL service back in 2006. The case lasted for almost two months. James was represented by attorney at law P. Mohanlall, while GTT was represented by Miles Fitzpatrick SC and Mr. T. Jonas.In the instant matter the plaintiff James Samuel,Authentic NFL Jerseys Cheap, had applied for and was provided with DSL internet services by the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company in 2006. The defendant held an exclusive license for national and international voice and data transmission under the telecommunication act of 1990.After the internet service was installed on the plaintiff’s computer,Cheap Jerseys From China, located at his residence in Georgetown,Cheap NHL Jerseys, he subscribed to the voice over internet protocol service (VOIP) provided by the Vonage company in the US. The service which Samuels subscribed to enables a subscriber to send and receive voice communication electronically over the internet by the use of a computer.The plaintiff wrote the defendant informing them of his intention to utilize the services. GT&T then replied to him advising that under the terms of his contract with them, he was prohibited from utilizing the DSL service for international telephone activities or for international telephony traffic bypass.Samuels according to court documents disregarded the advice proffered by the defendant and proceeded to utilize the DSL service provided by GT&T for VOIP activities. It was noted that upon the discovery of such activities GT&T blocked Samuels’s internet access,Wholesale Hockey Jerseys China, thereby disturbing the DSL service which was provided to his residence. GT&T contended that the disruption of the service was justified since the plaintiff was unlawfully operating an unlicensed telecommunication service in contravention of the provisions of the “telecommunications act of 1990”.Samuels then moved to the courts seeking an injunction against the telecommunication company, restraining them or its servant, agents from interfering with his use of the DSL service for the VOIP service as an accessory to the internet service available to users in Guyana and aboard. Further, Samuels in his legal proceedings declared that there was a breach of contract executed between him and the defendant (GT&T) for the provision of DSL service for his premises.Samuels was seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 (one million) for the breach of contract whereby he said he suffered loss and damage because of the disruption.Several issues arose for consideration in this action. The main thrust of the defendant’s case is that the plaintiff was in breach of the DSL contract he entered with them. Samuels contended that he merely signed an application form for the provision of the DSL service and was not provided with a written contract setting out the terms and conditions of such service at the time he made the application.Justice Persaud in his decision stated that having regard to all the inconvenience, the appropriate award would be $850,000.