Not allowed to cancel due to reclocation?

pmduk

There has to be consideration on both sides. They have allowed you to use their facilities and you have agreed to pay them for a certain period. You are unable to use the facilities although they are still available to you to use. The contract still stands I'm afraid. Others have pointed out the gym is not involved in your decision to relocate.

I suspect gyms make their profit from people who pay to use the facilities but don't bother, for a variety of reasons.

Esqui

Oh, hi Holly!!!

mabrookes

dmg24 wrote: »

Of course a contract has to be legal (is that not self evident?), but the OP has presented us with nothing to say that it is not.

So, from your law module at uni, why do you think that they should be able to leave?

I meant, quite obviously, enforceable. Also it was quite clearly a question from someone who vaguely remembers something, but was asking other people their opinions and knowledge - so why are you then asking me questions like that (beyond a laughable attempt to feel superior over someone you know nothing about).

Because it was a module we could choose (outside our subject) it was done as a stand alone module and gave an overview of, and highlighted various crazy things about the law (contract law mostly) that are not well known. Such as the fact that if one person threatens to be in breach of contract (literally just saying they will stop paying when they should be doing is technically an example) then the other party is allowed to assume from the moment it is said that the contract has been broken and take legal action as if it had been (and a court is supposed to treat it as such).

Like I said the contract has to be of mutual benefit. If we wrote a contract of me agreeing to just give you £100, not matter how well written, it would be unenforceable in court. I admitted that you could just say he "can" still access it or have not moved. I do however, find it a sad state that people would rather this disturbing fact be true than go along with the protection to both sides that should (and is supposed to) exist.

In this instance the only one with protection, and a worrying control over peoples lives, is the company and this will always feel wrong to me. I just think in this case it is not within the spirit of contract law. All just my opinion on it.

dmg24 wrote: »

You might want to re edit that - it makes little sense.

Of course it doesn't, the other replies are from insane people with no understanding of the English language.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I learnt law after being picked by the bill for using language at The Crown, does that me me a barrister?

Ahhh, so what you are saying is, unless you are an established expert at the very top you cannot ask questions/inquire or talk about something? Well that's me never going to the doctors, dentist, opticians or hiring a plumber, builder, mechanic etc etc etc (im assuming you don't either). Or maybe you could just grow up a little and talk to people like a human?

Optimist

mabrookes wrote: »

Is it really that simple though, isn't a contract is required to benefit both parties to be legal (I did a law module at uni and I remember something along those lines). Beyond that it is just my opinion but I think he should be able to leave. It would be different if it was a credit agreement where they lent money, or supplied something upfront but they lose nothing by him not paying, he does legally loses services if he continues paying.

Of course you could argue he shouldn't move, but this brings a whole knew sinister dimension to what companies will try and demand as part of their contract - although I can't imagine them being enforceable in court.

There is a very good chance that it actually is a credit agreement. Most gyms that offer monthly payments are linked to finance companies. Without reading the contract the OP signed it is difficult to say other than it is highly likely.

NeilF3485

Optimist wrote: »

There is a very good chance that it actually is a credit agreement. Most gyms that offer monthly payments are linked to finance companies. Without reading the contract the OP signed it is difficult to say other than it is highly likely.

Does it not depend on whether the membership fee is paid in advance or in arrears as to whether this is a credit agreement?

Usually you pay in advance and so they are not extending you credit at all and can just stop your service if you don't pay.

Obviously still owe them the fees as per the contract though!

As far as moving goes I only echo the comments of others - not their fault you are moving, and they have offered you the opportunity to transfer your membership to another branch (although that happens to be miles away!) contract is a contract!

You could see if they will let you transfer it it into somebody else's name and see if a friend etc. wants to buy you out? Just a thought.

tomwakefield

mabrookes wrote: »

Like I said the contract has to be of mutual benefit. If we wrote a contract of me agreeing to just give you £100, not matter how well written, it would be unenforceable in court. I admitted that you could just say he "can" still access it or have not moved. I do however, find it a sad state that people would rather this disturbing fact be true than go along with the protection to both sides that should (and is supposed to) exist.

Consideration has to be provided from both sides.
The OP has offered money
The gym has offered to provide a service.

It is not the gym's fault that the OP has put themselves in a position where they are no longer able to take advantage of the services provided, and there is no breach of contract from the gym's end which would allow the OP to stop paying the money without penalty.

wealdroam

NeilF3485 wrote: »

Does it not depend on whether the membership fee is paid in advance or in arrears as to whether this is a credit agreement?

Usually you pay in advance and so they are not extending you credit at all and can just stop your service if you don't pay.

But the way these credit agreements often work is:
1) you agree to pay a monthly fee,
2) as soon as the agreement is signed, the credit company passes one year's money to the gym company,
3) for the rest of the year you, the customer, are paying off the 'loan' that the credit company has 'given' you.

Pretty much in the same way that most monthly car insurance schemes work.

mabrookes

tomwakefield wrote: »

Consideration has to be provided from both sides.
The OP has offered money
The gym has offered to provide a service.

It is not the gym's fault that the OP has put themselves in a position where they are no longer able to take advantage of the services provided, and there is no breach of contract from the gym's end which would allow the OP to stop paying the money without penalty.

Yea I see what you are saying. I still have the same opinion of it not being in the spirit of what contract law was actually intending though - the idea that a gym can stop the entire life of a person (or place themselves at a higher priority without any real reason as they lose nothing) instead of the reasonable position of ending it once there is no mutual benefit seems ridiculous.

Undisputedtruth

The gym company should have allowed the person to cancel the contract due to moving out of the area. It seems unfair to continue to pay for the contract when the person has relocated to another area. As such, it's possible to argue that the contract was unfair and thus voiding the contract itself.

Udt

mo786uk

wealdroam wrote: »

But the way these credit agreements often work is:
1) you agree to pay a monthly fee,
2) as soon as the agreement is signed, the credit company passes one year's money to the gym company,
3) for the rest of the year you, the customer, are paying off the 'loan' that the credit company has 'given' you.

Pretty much in the same way that most monthly car insurance schemes work.

Credit agreements usually fall under the consumer credit act. for a business to comply with the CCA there are significant costs and hassles involved - it is a very detailed and comprehensive piece of legislation.

For this reason i would be surprised if gyms operated a consumer credit model.

The basic definition of credit is 'financial accomodation' therefore if you have signed up for a year but they are allowing you to pay in installments then its arguable there is credit involved but I would imagine it varies from gym to gym depending on the contracts in place. for small gyms i would be surprised if they had external credit. the chances are they are the ones providing the credit.

Car insurance is usually credit i believe as you are paying a fixed sum but they are allowing you to pay it slowly - ergo financial accomodation.