Quote:
|
Originally Posted by monkeybreath
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  |
You are missing the point MB
If the OP had never seen a contract there are no terms and conditions to review and allowing installation of the equipment would only imply acceptance of the verbal contract which would be far, far removed from the official NTL printed contract.
The telephone conversation could have gone along the lines of:
NTL "Good morning, NTL sales, how can I help you?"
OP "Good morning, I am moving into student accomodation for nine months, what would it cost for your services?"
NTL " Students can have a nine month contract for £xx.xx for y services"
OP "That's great mate, I'll have that, when cann you install it?"
NTL "Next Tuesday do you, now what's you name and address?"
The NTL sales person may not have said anything about the contract or its terms and conditions and may have been more interested in earning his or her commission or another sale towards his target or could even want to get the customer off the phone so he could go to his break.
It would all probably revolve around whether NTL sent the OP a written contract in duplicate and got back a signed acceptance.