Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Excuse me - at what point have I explained Virgin's stance? Only Virgin can do that.
What I have posted in my own view on the terms and conditions laid out on the website - nothing to do with Virgin training, opinion, policy or anything else. I would have arrived at the same opinion no matter who I worked for.
|
Not saying you are representing VM - just commended you on putting forward in debate the stance generally taken by VM.
Quote:
|
And surely if a company is registed in England and Wales then it is that contract law that would apply, not Scottish law?
|
No - you are referring to jurisdiction. Registration status is irrelevant. A good point though, for the basis of jurisdiction is the first hurdle in any case. Jurisdiction generally flows from the place a contract is made, especially if made in a person's home. It can be a thorny issue and result in leading substantial submissions in law each supported by legal authority from other cases. In this case, jurisdiction is a clear cut issue that I have well prepared for. To put it another way, if BT sold you a service in England but had in their terms that jurisdiction and law was that of Inner Mongolia, the English courts would be slow to refer it there without proof that the selling party went to great lengths to explain the precise nature of jurisdiction. In my experience most salespeople have little idea of the true meaning of the term, let alone explain it.
---------- Post added at 00:55 ---------- Previous post was at 00:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
That's what I thought. And I would think this would blow this whole case out of the courts? On what basis does the OP want his original contract installed?
|
To this, and Ben's previous post on the subject, there was no variance. VM did not go through the steps to vary, nor take a fair and mutually amicable approach. They would also have required to offer arrangements and alternatives, none of which followed. What Virgin Media instead practised towards many is a grossly unfair, unreasonable and unwelcome change in a crucial part of the service without reasonable explanation, if any. That approach has long been considered unlawful.
Once again, a service provider cannot offer a quantum of service and then restrict it simply because they have oversold in comparison to their means to operate that service. There's an element of restitution involved. Oh, and they must be reasonable.