Gym cancelation debt was penalty rules judge

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

The concept of 'Loss of Bargain' is a bit of a 'coulda' situation.

If the consumer should be allowed get out clauses for unforseen circumstances suchas pregnancy, maybe the gym should be allowed getout clauses for unforseen circumstances suchas a significant rent review in order to re-establish prices. All in the name of being balanced offcoruse.

LOL but they do put their prices up if their costs go up. And businesses can legitimately do this providing the consumer is afforded adequate notice and has a chance to cancel.

And I agree, loss of bargain is a could woulda shoulda. They coulda woulda shoulda had their Terms and Conditions set out in a way which made clear a contract is not formed until they have sent the goods instead of having it so it is upon payment or confirmation email.

fluffnutter

Murtle wrote: »

hmmm, still don't agree with her not paying it! A contract is a contract and should be adhered to.

What a load of nonsense. A unfair contract can be challenged, as it was here. The outcome being that she didn't have to adhere to the contract and pay the full fee, because it was deemed unfair.

Just because some company bungs something in their T&Cs doesn't automatically make it lawful.

Mattmorts

Have a read of this High Court case brought by the OFT as it will clarify the law and what the OFT and courts deem to be fair and unfair terms in gym contracts.

"The OFT v Ashbourne Management Services 2011 EHC 1237" - sorry you'll have to google it!

Thanks.

Mattmorts

Sorry - not allowed to post links as a new user!

I have put the High Court Order on my website under "Downloads" as it makes interesting reading about what constitutes unfair terms in gym memberships.

mortonlegal.co.uk

bod1467

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/01/battle-over-roko-gym-cancellat.html

This case has made the national press.