Any law with more than fifty words in it - I can drive a bus through.
Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »
But only if you have a PSV license (or whatever they call them these days). And have you seen the forms to apply for one of those?
RadoJo wrote: »
If you aren't reviewing a product, then it is reasonable not to read the Ts and Cs relating to that, but I think that because people see a load of text in a block, they disregard all of it!
Heather Clayton, from the OFT, says: "We all know people don't read the small print of contracts."
~Brock~ wrote: »
I recently witnessed a court case where a person cheerfully confirmed to the judge that she never reads anything she signs......clearly under the impression that this fact meant that she didn't have to be bound by the terms of any contract she enters into.
Toe-Jam wrote: »
A lot of 3rd party retailers are including clauses in their seperate terms and conditions that if you cancel your contract, even without penalty from the network, you are liable for all costs of the full contract the the 3rd party. When the network is charging you nothing for exiting.
FATBALLZ wrote: »
This is ridiculous. The only way firms can do anything about this is to type all the terms and conditions in a massive font. So instead of having a couple of pages of small print you'll have a novel of large print.
I find insulting the implication that I am too stupid or blind to notice that the terms and conditions just because they are written in small letters.
DaveF327 wrote: »
I don't think the issue in question is the size of the print, more the deliberate way in which companies obfuscate terms of business - often to the consumer's detriment - within such print.
The generic term "small print" is used in this thread to denote general terms and conditions which are usually lengthy, although companies that like to "bury bad news" do like to shrink their text or hide it away in faint grey print on the rear of large bold print letters.
stugib wrote: »
I think this will be the business model involved. Network pays the retailer commission for a new contract, retailer passes some of this onto the consumer to make the handset free/reduce monthly tariff to compete. If the contract's cancelled, the network claws back the commission. They're not making you pay the contract, they're just making sure they're not out of pocket through no fault of their own. Doesn't seem unfair.
New plans have just been announced by the Government
DON'T assume your landlord covers you
Incl £2ish sun cream & £1.50 disposable BBQs