Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ian@huth
Yes, it is as I said a question of what was said by the OP and CSR when the services were ordered. If any court proceedings were taken by NTL for recovery of the debt and this was defended by any competant lawyer then NTL would have to produce a signed contract or a valid recording of the telephone order to be able to win. In the absence of those proofs of contract the defence could be worded in such a way that a "reasonable man" would take the view of the OP. ie, the OP could say that he told the agent that he wanted the services for the nine months he would be at that address.
|
i still don't think the competent lawyer would win- it is well known that company will not vary a contract on an individual basis, the OP would have had the cooling off period before installation to review the terms of the contract- allowing the equipment to be installed is implied consent, so the contract is agreed to. There is no need for signed documentation.
If the OP had asked for the contract to be for nine months only, he/she would have been advised of the cancellation terms, or referred to the contract to read this for his/herself.
At the end of the day i suppose the OP would probably win but this is only because of the nanny state that we now live in. The LCD put massive political pressure on the judiciary to rule in favour of the "poor vunerable consumer" and insufficient consideration is given to the position of the business- it is always "big powerful company exploiting poor innocent consumer".
anyway, i think i may head off topic soon so i might put my soapbox away
