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.
|
I like this. It concurs with common sense thinking. If you argue that "the customer is breaking the contract because he is moving", then you are asking to justify the fact that a customer cannot even move houses because he is tied to his broadband connection contract. How on earth do you justify something ridiculous like that???