MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

frazefast

completelyterrified wrote: »

From memory, there's no definition of the words "government", "regulation", "law" or "license" stated within the 3 t&cs either, but 3 can still choose to not allow you to end your contract based entirely on those terms.

As they can from their own definition of 'detrimental' going by your argument.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

As they can from their own definition of 'detrimental' going by your argument.

Yep. Unless they define it, they will take it from the common meaning.

They'll do the same for "Materially Detrimental", and although I can't confirm it now, I guarantee there'll be several thousand references to this available on the web alone, spanning multiple industries.

frazefast

completelyterrified wrote: »

Yep. Unless they define it, they will take it from the common meaning.

Again, how do you know they will?

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

Again, how do you know they will?

Because that's how contracts work. If a special meaning of a word or term is deemed necessary, it will be defined in the contract. If it's not, it falls back to the common understanding or definition of the term.

If they didn't, they'd have to define every word in the contract. That's why they do it like that. It also allows the meaning of terms to be changed without changing the terms themselves.

frazefast

Do you seriously believe Ofcom will challenge 3 on behalf of iPhone users because they accidentally omitted the word 'materially' in their T&Cs?

Has ONE single iPhone user successfully cancelled their contract with 3 without penalty because of this omission?

You're in the same boat as the rest of us IMO.

System

frazefast wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Ofcom will challenge 3 on behalf of iPhone users because they accidentally omitted the word 'materially' in their T&Cs?

Has ONE single iPhone user successfully cancelled their contract with 3 without penalty because of this omission?

You're in the same boat as the rest of us IMO.

you seem to be implying that the omission of a word makes no difference.
is a "red car" no different from a "car" ?
one is exclusive and one is not. "material detriment" has a recognised meaning as has been pointed out repeatedly. detriment is a looser term and favours us.

why are you pushing this? you're coming across as spiteful.

completelyterrified

frazefast wrote: »

Do you seriously believe Ofcom will challenge 3 on behalf of iPhone users because they accidentally omitted the word 'materially' in their T&Cs?

Has ONE single iPhone user successfully cancelled their contract with 3 without penalty because of this omission?

You're in the same boat as the rest of us IMO.

I believe that I signed a piece of paper that told me that if there was a detrimental change to my contract, I can cancel without charge. Legally, I'm well within my rights to cancel. Also, yes, if they've "forgotten" to put the right term in their contract, that is sadly their problem. If they "forget" to put in a term stating that they can increase prices if a change in spectrum licensing forces them to, and they then do that, I'm within my rights to cancel, because they didn't mention that I couldn't.

I suspect that the Dyson chap who has decided to pay up his ETC and then challenge the legality of it will be successful.

I'm absolutely happy to accept that I could very much be wrong, and I'm happy to accept I might get nowhere. Such is life. I'm just absolutely convinced that since my contract states I can cancel, I can do.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's a difference between the 2 sets of T&Cs. It sucks for those on Pay Monthly contracts, but the fact that several thousand customers on other networks were in the same boat and got nowhere leads me to believe the outcome will be the same here. The only reason I'm pursuing the iPhone T&Cs situation is because there's a legitimate issue with the terms. Nothing more.

frazefast

Spiteful? Deary me have a word. I just don't like posters claiming things as if they are facts when they have no evidence to back them up. It's "detrimental" to readers on here.

frazefast

Yawn! It's Apple fan boys v the rest all over again. I'm trying to help everyone on here, you're just sticking up for your own and telling everyone else it's tough. Not true!

Quentin

tremault wrote: »

..... it does demonstrate that such definitions exist in some form and could be cross referenced.

But in the 3 ts + cs there is no "cross referencing" of the word "material" or the expression "material detriment"!