Not allowed to cancel due to reclocation?

arcon5

mabrookes wrote: »

Of course the life concerns "should" be the concern and it "should" be that those life choices have to come first, at the moment it doesn't work that way. Just because you support the way businesses do what they want when they want does not mean the rest of us can't look at how it should be and try and make a better society.

Okay, say the life choices of op should be a concern to the business, then it works the other way around yes?

Q number of people agree to pay £x amount for y months to be a member, the company director then says we should make improvements here and there to imrpove facilities.... then 90% of Q number of people decide 3 months in they can no longer attend for various reasons (e.g. new job, new workload, sold car and can't get there ect)....

now the business has lost 75% of projected revenue which the people agreed to pay...

that particular gym employs 15 people, 10 now have to be made redundant as the money is no longer there to pay them. They start claiming JSA whilst they find a new job, this pulls money away from vital services... and the vicious cycle goes on..


So knowing how this can affect the local economy and the everyday running of the business, do ops life concerns take pecidence over the concerns of everybody else which it has a knock on effect to??


I'm not saying op should care about any of this or how successful the company is. They shouldn't, as long as they are getting the service they paid for then their profitability is irrelevant.... but the point is both parties should ensure they are fulfilling their part of the agreement!!

There should not be get out clauses simply because the consumer has not thought ahead. If there was then the business model would be completely different to allow for such situations.

As already pointed out, by agreeing to these minimum terms op has got better rates... so what are your views about backdating fees to the start of the agreement if they was allowed to exit the agreement?

The law is not always right, employment law for example can send a small business under if they get it wrong! But in this instance I fail to see any argument as to why op should be allowed to exit the agreement...

Also imagine this...
half way through the agreement the business rates go up 30% or an employee damages some equipment and costs the business £50k to rectify.. how would you feel if the business said they are raising the monthly charges because the busiensses concerns are something the consumer should respect -- and in order to remain profitable they need to recover the £50k..


Contracts are there to protect not just the business, but also the consumer.

They are not toys.

mabrookes

arcon5 wrote: »

Okay, say the life choices of op should be a concern to the business, then it works the other way around yes?

Q number of people agree to pay £x amount for y months to be a member, the company director then says we should make improvements here and there to imrpove facilities.... then 90% of Q number of people decide 3 months in they can no longer attend for various reasons (e.g. new job, new workload, sold car and can't get there ect)....

now the business has lost 75% of projected revenue which the people agreed to pay...

that particular gym employs 15 people, 10 now have to be made redundant as the money is no longer there to pay them. They start claiming JSA whilst they find a new job, this pulls money away from vital services... and the vicious cycle goes on..


So knowing how this can affect the local economy and the everyday running of the business, do ops life concerns take pecidence over the concerns of everybody else which it has a knock on effect to??


I'm not saying op should care about any of this or how successful the company is. They shouldn't, as long as they are getting the service they paid for then their profitability is irrelevant.... but the point is both parties should ensure they are fulfilling their part of the agreement!!

There should not be get out clauses simply because the consumer has not thought ahead. If there was then the business model would be completely different to allow for such situations.

As already pointed out, by agreeing to these minimum terms op has got better rates... so what are your views about backdating fees to the start of the agreement if they was allowed to exit the agreement?

The law is not always right, employment law for example can send a small business under if they get it wrong! But in this instance I fail to see any argument as to why op should be allowed to exit the agreement...

Also imagine this...
half way through the agreement the business rates go up 30% or an employee damages some equipment and costs the business £50k to rectify.. how would you feel if the business said they are raising the monthly charges because the busiensses concerns are something the consumer should respect -- and in order to remain profitable they need to recover the £50k..


Contracts are there to protect not just the business, but also the consumer.

They are not toys.

I accepted the idea regarding getting better terms rather than paying monthly in an earlier post. You are coming completely from the business side of in these example though.

Imagine the same scenario where the gym hasn't taken all those commitments or has all these problems? It does work that way as well. And shouldn't the business be taking some steps to make sure it is not that reliant?

Also I don't support just changing your mind as a good enough reason (that would be stupid), and there is no chance that the amount of people you mention are all going to take gym memberships then move! Or are you suggesting if they know they can do that they will spend thousands of pounds (sometimes over £10000) and go through all the hassle of moving to get out of a single gym membership?

I accept a lot of what you are saying but I think it needs to be met in the middle more, at the moment it is mostly on the side of the business - whether the situations in your examples are true or not the business will still get the benefit.

arcon5

mabrookes wrote: »

Imagine the same scenario where the gym hasn't taken all those commitments or has all these problems? It does work that way as well. And shouldn't the business be taking some steps to make sure it is not that reliant?

They are still liable, just as equally.

The only difference being, in this case op will be persued by the business... if your scenario, the business will be persued by other businesses.

Ltd company as a business model is used for a reason. Reason being to protect the businessmans personal assets where the company becomes insolvent or goes into liquidation.

The gym cannot get out of their financial committments in the same way the consumer can't.

There is an ongoing case between many businesses that agreed to take out contracts up to 15 years worth up to £30k for telephone equipment worth just a few hundred. The businesses victims of hard selling, but contracts still binding since the equipment list and terms have been signed!!

mabrookes wrote: »

And shouldn't the business be taking some steps to make sure it is not that reliant?

If you could legally exit a binding agreement then they would have a different business model.

Not reliant on what? The money the user has agreed to pay..

What if I buy a vehicle specialising in driving in rocky terrain, then move to a new city... should I be able to return thhe vehicle?

Another angle.... Op has agreed to pay £x for a years service and the business has agreed to allow payment in 12 stages.. why should the business then in turn be required to in effect issue a refund?

mabrookes wrote: »

There is no chance that the amount of people you mention are all going to take gym memberships then move!

Maybe not.. but what about people who change jobs and subsequently change shift patterns and can no longer fit the gym into their work patterns?
If you travel by car and your car is burnt out?

So are so many scenarios people would use to get out of their obligations if it was allowed.

mabrookes wrote: »

I accept a lot of what you are saying but I think it needs to be met in the middle more

The thing is though... it doesn't.

Its not about the company meeting them in the middle though..

Its about making informed and well thoughtout decision making.

What if you bought a house, then moved in and found you lived next to neighboughs from hell.... should the vendor be made to cancel the sale?

mabrookes wrote: »

at the moment it is mostly on the side of the business - whether the situations in your examples are true or not the business will still get the benefit.

its not about being on the side of the business. Its not a case of defend the business. Its a case of the business is doing nothing wrong.

The reason most of the comments on here are not in the tone of "you can cancel if..." or "you should be able to cancel if..." is because they shouldn't.

How will the business benefit? They are in effect part-refunding the customer.


I have already said this here (and in most other threads)... but contracts are not toys, they are legally binding documents which lay out the committments of two parties.
Their committment to provide access to their equipment, the premises, the facilities in exchange for the customers committment to pay an agreed price for the period stated.

If the gym buy new equipment then a bunch of people are excuses from their obligations can the business return the equipment because their curcimstances have changed ? No they can't. B2B transactions don't even have the standard cooling off period or rights to return protection consumers have.. why? because they are expected to understand such.


If op come on a said the gym has not been open for 10% of the time they should, they have limtied equipment as other pieces of equipment has broken ect ect then they would be entitled to cancel on the grounds the gym has not fulfilled their obligations (they may also be entitled to damages depending on the curcumstances).. but the gym are fulfilling their obligation, so should the customer.

tomwakefield

mabrookes wrote: »

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.

On the contrary, the purpose of contract law is exactly to “lock people in” to ensure they fulfil their part of the contract which they initially agreed to. If contracts can be broken on a whim then they become worthless.

mabrookes

I don't think you realise how much I am not supporting the ability to easily get out of the contract, maybe I am just not putting my thoughts across as well as I could.

There are very few scenarios that I would support being able to end this contract on, and even moving for the sake of it is NOT actually one of them. But if someone is required to move, in a world that is getting more difficult to live in, then I still stand by the idea this should be grounds to end this kind of contract.

And as there are so few scenarios I actually think fall under this I don't think it would damage any business, it is incompatible with the idea of a "meeting of minds" as described by law that the consumer is agreeing to not be able to live as they need to without being penalised for it. Part of the gyms obligation should be to take a back seat to these situations, they are after all given permission to run their business from society, the same society it should then support and work with.

Changing jobs is not a good enough reason and gyms have opening times for worker so it would be very rare to get a situation where a worker can no longer attend, so this is not a good enough reason in general (but considering it would be a rare occurrence maybe a goodwill gesture in this instance should be given).

As for the case you mention with telephone equipment, I cannot see any way that will stand in court. There are many contract provisions that stop this, the mistake principle springs to mind as well as just general fraud if they were led to believe anything that was not true. You actually do not need to read a contract in this instance, if I sign one with you and you tell me something that is then different in the contract the contract will be invalid. So if you tell me something will cost £100, but I sign and it actually says £500, it would not be enforceable. It is not really a mutual agreement and "meeting of minds" in this case - although this would depend on proof which then becomes a different issue.

gordikin

tomwakefield wrote: »

On the contrary, the purpose of contract law is exactly to “lock people in” to ensure they fulfil their part of the contract which they initially agreed to. If contracts can be broken on a whim then they become worthless.

...and more expensive. The OP agreed to the contract...the gym has done nothing wrong here and is available for the OP to use...the OP chooses not to do so because of convenience.

arcon5

mabrookes wrote: »

As for the case you mention with telephone equipment, I cannot see any way that will stand in court. There are many contract provisions that stop this, the mistake principle springs to mind as well as just general fraud if they were led to believe anything that was not true. You actually do not need to read a contract in this instance, if I sign one with you and you tell me something that is then different in the contract the contract will be invalid. So if you tell me something will cost £100, but I sign and it actually says £500, it would not be enforceable. It is not really a mutual agreement and "meeting of minds" in this case - although this would depend on proof which then becomes a different issue.

Incorrect again.

The business can simply say they had 2 packages, one at £100 and one at £500.. you chose and agreed to the £500 one.

In this scenario, you have signed and agreed to pay £500. Which is why you should always read contracts before signing.

This is why when signing a commercial lease which is a shark infested waters, its very common to have the lease sent back and forth many times as things are missing or things are incorrect.
But one you sign that document, everything within it becomes legally binding.

Now you talk of fraud and refer to misselling here, but how can you prove you have been missold if you signature is on an agreement that says you agree to pay £500?

I have a USB stick worth £3. I offer you in for £5,000 which you accept. We sign a contract and you realise its real value is £3 and refuse to pay. The debt is enforcable, you have not been missold, just idiotic for not doing some basic research before agreeing.

(just to clarify, i'm not calling you an idiot here, i'm saying it would be an idiotice thing to do in this hyperthetical scenario ).

I also don't think there should be a way in which you can exit a contract. As already mentioned, they lock in both parties for a reason. You would otherwise have people finding loopholes or court battles where people are trying to climb out through this new door. (so to speak). It complicates things so much more.

I do think people should think before signing, if they think their circumstances may change then they can negotiate a lesser contract, choose an alternative package or even negotiate an exit clause, maybe something like "one more notice, with a two month penalty" -- getting a gym to agree with this is unlikely though -- but for more significant contracts then you need to agree terms that suit both parties.

Would it be different if the gym was a local place run by a small business owner whereby each individual sale matters and they can't afford to loose the money? Where at the end of the month his wage is the bottom line... if the law allowed you to exit a contract in such situations, what about this poor business owner whose takings is down by upto £400 depending on the package?

The devil is always in the small print

mabrookes

arcon5 wrote: »

Incorrect again.

The business can simply say they had 2 packages, one at £100 and one at £500.. you chose and agreed to the £500 one.

In this scenario, you have signed and agreed to pay £500. Which is why you should always read contracts before signing.

This is why when signing a commercial lease which is a shark infested waters, its very common to have the lease sent back and forth many times as things are missing or things are incorrect.
But one you sign that document, everything within it becomes legally binding.

Now you talk of fraud and refer to misselling here, but how can you prove you have been missold if you signature is on an agreement that says you agree to pay £500?

I have a USB stick worth £3. I offer you in for £5,000 which you accept. We sign a contract and you realise its real value is £3 and refuse to pay. The debt is enforcable, you have not been missold, just idiotic for not doing some basic research before agreeing.

(just to clarify, i'm not calling you an idiot here, i'm saying it would be an idiotice thing to do in this hyperthetical scenario ).

I also don't think there should be a way in which you can exit a contract. As already mentioned, they lock in both parties for a reason. You would otherwise have people finding loopholes or court battles where people are trying to climb out through this new door. (so to speak). It complicates things so much more.

I do think people should think before signing, if they think their circumstances may change then they can negotiate a lesser contract, choose an alternative package or even negotiate an exit clause, maybe something like "one more notice, with a two month penalty" -- getting a gym to agree with this is unlikely though -- but for more significant contracts then you need to agree terms that suit both parties.

Would it be different if the gym was a local place run by a small business owner whereby each individual sale matters and they can't afford to loose the money? Where at the end of the month his wage is the bottom line... if the law allowed you to exit a contract in such situations, what about this poor business owner whose takings is down by upto £400 depending on the package?

The devil is always in the small print

I did say it becomes a whole new issue to be fair, it really is unenforceable in the situation I said but you are correct that it needs to then be proven (having a witness is always a good idea and could help). You can't just tell someone anything to get them to sign a contract, it has to be true or the contract is not valid (look it up).

In regards to the USB stick, if you told me I was buying a USB stick for £3, but the contract actually says £5000 then this would not be enforceable - which is more along the lines of what I was saying. Also if you told me the USB stick was worth £5000, and it was not, it would be fraudulent.

I agree with the scenario you gave though, it would be my fault if I just agreed to buy a USB stick for £5000 and did not check anything (as long as the amount in the contract is the same as I was told).

More thought should be put into contract by consumers as well, that is certainly is true. And if they did the rare occasions I am already talking about would be rarer, and it would not really matter as much if you could end in very specific, social circumstances.

You must accept that businesses regularly screw people over in various ways like this though, and it is not moral even if technically legal - and gyms are well known for it. This should be taken into account as well.

We have a different outlook on things I think.

arcon5

mabrookes wrote: »

I did say it becomes a whole new issue to be fair , it really is unenforceable in the situation I said but you are correct that it needs to then be proven (having a witness is always a good idea and could help). You can't just tell someone anything to get them to sign a contract, it has to be true or the contract is not valid (look it up).

In regards to the USB stick, if you told me I was buying a USB stick for £3, but the contract actually says £5000 then this would not be enforceable why would this not be enforable? what law would support your decision to terminate the agreement and not pay? because the seller has evidence for a £5k sale.. - which is more along the lines of what I was saying. Also if you told me the USB stick was worth £5000, and it was not, it would be fraudulent agreed! (thats a first huh), I would likely be done for misselling the product.

I agree with the scenario you gave though, it would be my fault if I just agreed to buy a USB stick for £5000 and did not check anything (as long as the amount in the contract is the same as I was told).

More thought should be put into contract by consumers as well agreed , that is certainly is true. And if they did the rare occasions I am already talking about would be rarer, and it would not really matter as much if you could end in very specific, social circumstances.

You must accept that businesses regularly screw people over in various ways like this though and visa versa, if you visit a business forum its full of businesses looking for advise on how to deal with a non-paying client or client who has done a chargeback, claimed not to have received goods, damaged items then claimed they arrived like that ect ect. , and it is not moral even if technically legal - and gyms are well known for it. This should be taken into account as well. Gyms know when people start attending they only stay for a few months until you get bored. Which is why they offer incentives for 12 month, 24 month contracts ect ect.

We have a different outlook on things I think.

Its a cut throat world - we can agree here maybe?

mabrookes wrote: »

We have a different outlook on things I think.

Yes we do

Except what we both think is legal or not, right or wrong is irrelevant.

Maybe we can agree on these final points and move on

mabrookes

arcon5 wrote: »

In regards to the USB stick, if you told me I was buying a USB stick for £3, but the contract actually says £5000 then this would not be enforceable why would this not be enforable? what law would support your decision to terminate the agreement and not pay?

Like I said above this, you are not allowed to say whatever you want to get someone to sign a contract. If you say I am buying a USB stick for £3 then when I sign I am allowed to assume this is true and if it is not the contract is worthless. I would have to prove this, and if I did either pay the original £3 or return the USB but the contract is legally unenforceable.

Do look it up sometime if you still do not believe me (you don't have to, obviously), it is interesting and could even help you in the future.

arcon5 wrote: »

Its a cut throat world - we can agree here maybe?


Yes we do

Except what we both think is legal or not, right or wrong is irrelevant.

Maybe we can agree on these final points and move on

I can agree on those final points , have good day (what is left of it).