Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I`m not convinced you are correct here. It has already been established that the contract is with a person, *not* the property.
Under English law, a contract requires, for it to be defined as a contract, the receipt of a product or service in exchange for the money paid. If either of those factors are not present then legally it is not classified as a contract.
If the customer is moving out of an NTL area, for the contract to still be a contract then NTL must supply the services in exchange for the money paid. Therefore, all the customer has to do is say that they are willing to continue paying if they can continue to receive the service. If NTL cannot provide the service then the criteria under English law that make a contract a contract are not satisfied and the customer's responsibilities are discharged.
|
The contract is with a named person or persons but is for installation of the services at a specific address and any court would take the view that the contract is tied as much to the address as to the person.
I know that I have argued in another thread about the validity of a verbal contract but that was about a dispute over whether the contract was for a fixed length of time or a minimum ongoing length of time.