Quote:
|
Originally Posted by intalex
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???
|
Nobody is saying that the customer is breaking the contract because they are moving. What is being said is that the contract is for 12 months and contains several ways of termination without penalty during that 12 month period. Any termination other than for the stipulated reasons will incur a penalty equal to the payment for the remaining period of the contract. The breach of contract would only occur if the customer refused to pay that penalty. However NTL may decide not to impose that penalty if they so wish. That is why I have suggested that services are reduced to the minimum value possible within the contract so as to reduce the penalty to a minimum. You can ask NTL not to impose the penalty due to your mitigating circumstances which they may or may not do.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I still entirely disagree, if no consideration has been paid for the installation then it cannot be considered to have been covered under the strict terms of a contract.
|
That's complete nonsense and I think you know that. Say for instance that you signed a contract for the supply of a new car and the contract stated that you would get FREE delivery, FREE number plates, FREE road tax, FREE 12 months insurance, FREE 3 year warranty, FREE 3 years servicing, FREE 3 years roadside assistance, etc. What would your reaction be if you take delivery and find that you are billed for the FREE items already supplied and would have to pay for any future repairs, servicing and roadside assistance. Would you consider the company to be in breach of contract?