Help with Fitness First? Please

mo786uk

I believe a contract can be made where the supplier can include a term which says they are within their rights to increase prices if they wnat to, and you accept this. However they often allow you a short period in which to cancel the contract if you want. Although I am not sure if they actually HAVE to or if it depends on what sort of changes thre are in the contract.

It will probably be governed by some legislation rather than contract law.

DVardysShadow

mo786uk wrote: »

I believe a contract can be made where the supplier can include a term which says they are within their rights to increase prices if they wnat to, and you accept this. However they often allow you a short period in which to cancel the contract if you want. Although I am not sure if they actually HAVE to or if it depends on what sort of changes thre are in the contract.

It will probably be governed by some legislation rather than contract law.

If there is a term giving the right to increase prices, then the extent of any increase will be specified within the contract or you will in general have a right to opt out within a reasonable time which may not be mentioned in the contract.

This is straightforward contract law, it won't be statute. It has to be this way - if not, then any company could raise prices to a ridiculous level and you would have no option but accept.

halibut2209

So much wrong here, and I hope that anyone here does not heed your advice

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It does not need a source.

It most certainly does if you wish to argue it from a legal standpoint

I provided the logic, which is good enough for me.

Logic does not equal law. It might be good enough for you, but that's not good enough for a magistrate or lawyer

While we are on the question of sources, I see you have not provided a source which proves me wrong. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Dear oh dear, that is the poorest of poor arguments. YOU made the claim. YOU need to back it up.

I hope that anyone reading this thread and takes the above as "good advice" can see that he has made a claim which has had no backing at all, and the refute given is as simple as "Well, you prove I'm wrong then"

mo786uk

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If there is a term giving the right to increase prices, then the extent of any increase will be specified within the contract or you will in general have a right to opt out within a reasonable time which may not be mentioned in the contract.

This is straightforward contract law, it won't be statute. It has to be this way - if not, then any company could raise prices to a ridiculous level and you would have no option but accept.

Indeed, therefore if no specific price is mentioned you will have the chance to opt out if the price is too high. The term will be considered an unfair term and will prob be in violation of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999

DVardysShadow

halibut2209 wrote: »

So much wrong here, and I hope that anyone here does not heed your advice



It most certainly does if you wish to argue it from a legal standpoint


Logic does not equal law. It might be good enough for you, but that's not good enough for a magistrate or lawyer



Dear oh dear, that is the poorest of poor arguments. YOU made the claim. YOU need to back it up.

I hope that anyone reading this thread and takes the above as "good advice" can see that he has made a claim which has had no backing at all, and the refute given is as simple as "Well, you prove I'm wrong then"

OK, folks, halibut thinks it is bad advice.

So, if a company increases the contract price on you within term, then according to halibut, you have no option but to pay. Let us quote halibut as the source on this, let everyone follow the advice. And if it turns out, as it will, that in fact you do have an option to cancel if terms are changed to your detriment, you can hold halibut responsible.

Are you happy with that responsibility, halibut?

Let us take a simple example. Halibut takes out a contract for a year with a gym at £30/month. 6 months in, the gym say it has gone to £130 month. Should halibut be forced to pay£130/month? Answer is yes, halibut must pay, as the price of being mouthy. For anyone else, do your research and you will find I am right, it is a 'detrimental change' to the contract.

halibut2209

And I thought your previous post was the poorest of poor arguments. I stand corrected.


Your arguments, now, are full of fallacy and strawman and ridiculous would be too nice a term to call it. The fact that you now claim that I could be held responsible for people paying more shows that you have a very limited grasp of law and rights.

Now, as it happens, since your initial post, you have clarified your argument slightly and said that it comes down to the terms and conditions in the contract. THAT is better advice.

Your initial post stated that ANY increase means you can pull out of the contract. I asked for a source for that, and you refused to provide it, saying it was "logical".

People post here wanting to know where they stand and what they are entitled to. And for you to make such a brash claim that any contract that increases in price is an automatic get-out clause is simply wrong. THAT is what I was objecting to.

In fact, I wasn't objecting to it at all. I simply asked if there was a source for that as I wasn't sure. But you blankly refused to provide that, and instead decided to make ridiculous counter-arguments to those who disagreed with you.

Now, if you would like to get this topic back onto track, could you please provide the relevant legal sources concerning increases in prices in contract.

squeaky

I just googled this ---> detrimental change to the contract.

In the first three pages of results there were a fair number referring to employment, and the remainder were largely found as part of (or discussion of) the Terms and Conditions for mobile phone contracts. (A typical example quoted below)

No sign in any that I followed up of a pointer to any legislation or a regulation. I'd have expected something to show up by the end of page three

5.3 Significant changes: We will notify you at least one month in advance of any change coming into effect that (in our reasonable opinion):

(b) is a change to your Agreement, your Contract Allowance, the Services or any Additional Services you are using, or to the Charges for any Services or Additional Services you are using, which is likely to be of material detriment to you.

halibut2209

Squeaky, what else does is say about that. What is the source, and what right of reply does the consumer have?

DVardysShadow

halibut2209 wrote: »

And I thought your previous post was the poorest of poor arguments. I stand corrected.


Your arguments, now, are full of fallacy and strawman and ridiculous would be too nice a term to call it. The fact that you now claim that I could be held responsible for people paying more shows that you have a very limited grasp of law and rights.

Now, as it happens, since your initial post, you have clarified your argument slightly and said that it comes down to the terms and conditions in the contract. THAT is better advice.

Your initial post stated that ANY increase means you can pull out of the contract. I asked for a source for that, and you refused to provide it, saying it was "logical".

People post here wanting to know where they stand and what they are entitled to. And for you to make such a brash claim that any contract that increases in price is an automatic get-out clause is simply wrong. THAT is what I was objecting to.

In fact, I wasn't objecting to it at all. I simply asked if there was a source for that as I wasn't sure. But you blankly refused to provide that, and instead decided to make ridiculous counter-arguments to those who disagreed with you.

Now, if you would like to get this topic back onto track, could you please provide the relevant legal sources concerning increases in prices in contract.

Read can as may, and you should get the sense of what I mean.

I think rather than rubbishing the idea that you could be held responsible, you should actually have the confidence in your position that my advice on detrimental changes to contracts is wrong, to actually step up and take responsibility for your claim if it is wrong.

You are a bystander in this, I don't owe you or anyone a link. If you don't like a logical explanation, then tough. I stand by the advice. A company cannot unilaterally impose a change to a contract to the detriment of the other party. Once a party changes the contract unilaterally, the other party can leave the contract within a reasonable time. You can be as insulting as you like. It is a poor style of argument on your part and I don't feel the least bit motivated to give you a link.

You effectively tell us that there is no get out from a price increase on a contract. Well fair enough, you could not be plainer than that. Now where is your source? If you demand a source from me, you damn yourself as a hypocrite by not providing your own source.

squeaky

halibut2209 wrote: »

Squeaky, what else does is say about that. What is the source, and what right of reply does the consumer have?

Sorry, that quote is from a bitterwallet item

That too is a quote from Virgin T&C's. The article says yes but...

We’ve been asked if these changes are grounds for customers to cancel their contracts free-of-charge; the answer is yes, but only in specific instances. Here are the relevant clauses from Virgin Mobile’s Terms of Service for Pay Monthly customers:

5.3 Significant changes: We will notify you at least one month in advance of any change coming into effect that (in our reasonable opinion):
(b) is a change to your Agreement, your Contract Allowance, the Services or any Additional Services you are using, or to the Charges for any Services or Additional Services you are using, which is likely to be of material detriment to you.
5.4 Non acceptance of changes: If you do not accept a change that falls within clause 5.3 you may cancel this Agreement by writing to us within 1 month of us telling you about any change, to let us know that you want to cancel.

What this means is if you call local and national numbers enough that the charges you pay are significant (Ofcom’s rule-of-thumb is 10 per cent of your overall bill), then you have grounds to cancel your contract without penalty. How this is calculated is more open to interpretation; some mobile providers assess your eligibility based on the previous month’s bill, some on the previous quarter.

Aha... Need to chase Ofcom down...