Not allowed to cancel due to reclocation?

baza52

Oh, i just got an iphone on a 24 month contract and forgot im going abroad for 2 years. Can i expect them to cancel my contract and also let me keep the iphone as its not mutually beneficial?

mabrookes

baza52 wrote: »

Oh, i just got an iphone on a 24 month contract and forgot im going abroad for 2 years. Can i expect them to cancel my contract and also let me keep the iphone as its not mutually beneficial?

There appears to be a lot of strange people in this forum :S In this case it is the company that is on the other side of this same argument and so this is not even slightly the same. It is the reverse and therefore the company is the one that needs protecting from an unreasonable situation.

If you were to send the phone back, or pay off the money that is specifically for the phone that has been given to you, then I would argue that the contract should end for the same reasons I have already stated.

I really can't imagine how you equated keeping a £400 phone you are supposed to be paying off to this case here, you seem strangely desperate to protect corrupt and unreasonable demands by businesses.

Hintza

mabrookes wrote: »

I did a law module at uni and I remember something along those lines

You have now moved from doing a law module to what appears to be an expert (from your advice in the post above).

That is brave.

tomwakefield

mabrookes wrote: »

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.

It's not stopping the entire life of a person. The person is free to move.

They also signed a contract agreeing to pay £X for Y months, and the gym will make purchasing decisions partially based on known income in the upcoming year. If they then suddenly lose some of that income it may mess things up financially (bearing in mind that allowing one person to do that sets a precedent)

The OP has also got cheaper rates while they were attending, by buying 12-month or 18-month membership rather than a more flexible monthly membership.
http://www.fitspacegyms.co.uk/membership-options

Undisputedtruth

The problem here is gym companies will always act in their interest even when 99% of the argument is against them. They are like Leeches when it comes to money and fairness is only a term they use if they have been hard done by.

shaolinfire

mabrookes wrote: »

There appears to be a lot of strange people in this forum :S In this case it is the company that is on the other side of this same argument and so this is not even slightly the same. It is the reverse and therefore the company is the one that needs protecting from an unreasonable situation.

If you were to send the phone back, or pay off the money that is specifically for the phone that has been given to you, then I would argue that the contract should end for the same reasons I have already stated.

I really can't imagine how you equated keeping a £400 phone you are supposed to be paying off to this case here, you seem strangely desperate to protect corrupt and unreasonable demands by businesses.

I think you are completely missing the sarcasm in the post by baza52

mabrookes

Hintza wrote: »

You have now moved from doing a law module to what appears to be an expert (from your advice in the post above).

That is brave.

Please explain - I have quite clearly given my opinions based on what I think and some things I remember. I do not see what else I have done.

tomwakefield wrote: »

It's not stopping the entire life of a person. The person is free to move.

They also signed a contract agreeing to pay £X for Y months, and the gym will make purchasing decisions partially based on known income in the upcoming year. If they then suddenly lose some of that income it may mess things up financially (bearing in mind that allowing one person to do that sets a precedent)

The OP has also got cheaper rates while they were attending, by buying 12-month or 18-month membership rather than a more flexible monthly membership.
http://www.fitspacegyms.co.uk/membership-options

I disagree, if it prioritises such a small and silly thing over your life choices the implication is you shouldn't be doing these choices while a part of it. I think this is completely wrong.

I just feel the spirit of the law was not to lock people into this kind of thing, it was to protect during times when there is a mutual contract between people. Over time companies/businesses always find a way to make anything work for them which is what they have done.

I do agree with you to an extent with the monthly option though.

dmg24

mabrookes wrote: »

Please explain - I have quite clearly given my opinions based on what I think and some things I remember. I do not see what else I have done.



I disagree, if it prioritises such a small and silly thing over your life choices the implication is you shouldn't be doing these choices while a part of it. I think this is completely wrong.

I just feel the spirit of the law was not to lock people into this kind of thing, it was to protect during times when there is a mutual contract between people. Over time companies/businesses always find a way to make anything work for them which is what they have done.

I do agree with you to an extent with the monthly option though.

Your feelings regarding the spirit of the law are entirely unsubstantiated. You might be best to stop giving 'advice' before checking your facts.

The OP's life choices are of no concern to the gym. Why should they be?

arcon5

Madbrookes, with the greatest respect, I think you need to do a little bit more on research on contract law before offering advise. As somebody taking such advise could find themself in alot of trouble.

Far too many people sign contractual agreements without a second thought or without reading or understanding fully what they are agreeing to on what terms.
Contracts should not be taken with a pince of salt, if they are you get situations like op is in!

mabrookes

dmg24 wrote: »

The problem is that you phrase your opinion as if it is advice, as if you know what you are talking about. That does not appear to be the case.

Why should an individual's life choices be the concern of the gym?

My knowledge of consumer protection is pretty good, certainly more than what someone was spoonfed in a single module at uni. Your knowledge, as demonstrated in your posts, in severely lacking. It is not helpful to mislead people.



Everyone else understood the point baza52 was making.

Your comment regarding senility is offensive and uncalled for.

This is just not true, there is no part of what I have said that was not clearly based on saying what I believe as an opinion or asking something. And how could it sound like advice to someone who I started by asking, and is not even the OP. If I was addressing the OP then maybe you could start to ask me about this, and make these claims but I have not.

Regarding the sarcasm post please explain what it meant and how it can be defined as sarcasm in your opinion - as discussing language puts you in an area that I am more than fairly capable in (and work with).

The senile comment was hyperbolic, I didn't think anyone would take offence at such a thing. I imagine you're actually just saying that, but as I can't be sure I apologise for any offence caused.

Also spoonfed? It is safe to assume someone who has been published and lectures on the full law degrees may be fairly knowledgeable. It is a bit petty to now try and attack someone way beyond you just because I can't remember the content.