MSE News: Three to raise mobile prices

Quentin

completelyterrified wrote: »

Except it's no more ambiguous than the word "increase" is, as I stated above, which could have several difference meanings depending on how you chose to apply the word to a given set of circumstances.

But, if you wish to go and challenge the term in a court of law, please do so. Just be advised that you'll probably not be successful.

No

I have explained to you how any difference in interpretation of ambiguous contract terms is dealt with.

This exchange all started when you (wrongly) asserted that the term "materially detrimental" means whatever ofcom have previously said it means - though as no reference to this occurs throughout the 3 ts + cs, then it is irrelevant!

Quentin

completelyterrified wrote: »

You, today, 13:38:

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.

Sorry, not me - someone else wrote all that!

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

Sorry, not me - someone else wrote all that!

Well pointed out. Gladly withdrawn.

System

Quentin wrote: »

No

I have explained to you how any difference in interpretation of ambiguous contract terms is dealt with.

This exchange all started when you (wrongly) asserted that the term "materially detrimental" means whatever ofcom have previously said it means - though as no reference to this occurs throughout the 3 ts + cs, then it is irrelevant!

I think there is some confusion going on here.
what Ofcom say will effect what Ofcom do, but not necessarily overrule what a court will say.
as some people have already said, if you can prove that something is materially detrimental to you then you will win. if it is ambiguous, then you will probably win. if the court however, decides that it is not ambiguous, due to the terms being used in other similar arenas for a long enough period of time to become standard definition, then you will lose.
the point that I believe is being made, is that if Ofcom, the regulatory body, has deemed that the term is clear and does not consider it to be ambiguous, then a court is likely to agree.

completelyterrified

Quentin wrote: »

No

I have explained to you how any difference in interpretation of ambiguous contract terms is dealt with.

This exchange all started when you (wrongly) asserted that the term "materially detrimental" means whatever ofcom have previously said it means - though as no reference to this occurs throughout the 3 ts + cs, then it is irrelevant!

Then it all comes down to whether or not you believe a term that isn't defined in the contract can be classed as ambiguous purely because it isn't defined in the contract. Again, if you'd like to fight that corner, best of luck to you.

completelyterrified

tremault wrote: »

as some people have already said, if you can prove that something is materially detrimental to you then you will win. if it is ambiguous, then you will probably win. if the court however, decides that it is not ambiguous, due to the terms being used in other similar arenas for a long enough period of time to become standard definition, then you will lose.
the point that I believe is being made, is that if Ofcom, the regulatory body, has deemed that the term is clear and does not consider it to be ambiguous, then a court is likely to agree.

^^^^ This. 1000 times this. Having been used in at least 2 cases with 2 other companies, where both times the company succeeded in pressing ahead with the rise, I personally think it's very unlikely that anyone would succede in arguing that the term "materially detrimental" is ambiguous.

Quentin

tremault wrote: »

... if the court however, decides that it is not ambiguous, due to the terms being used in other similar arenas for a long enough period of time to become standard definition, then you will lose.
the point that I believe is being made, is that if Ofcom, the regulatory body, has deemed that the term is clear and does not consider it to be ambiguous, then a court is likely to agree.

You have misunderstood all this.

completelyrerrified is stating that he will find us Ofcom's definition of "material". But even if he produces this, it is irrelevant as the 3 ts & cs don't say that Ofcom's definition is the relevant one!

System

Quentin wrote: »

You have misunderstood all this.

completelyrerrified is stating that he will find us Ofcom's definition of "material". But even if he produces this, it is irrelevant as the 3 ts & cs don't say that Ofcom's definition is the relevant one!

I understand what you're saying, but what you would find is that Ofcom would be very careful in providing a definition that would be used by any court or any legal body drafting these contracts. the definition used by Ofcom would be the definition referred to in any cases of reasonable doubt. to claim that the term is ambiguous would swiftly be met by an absolute assertion that it is not ambiguous and would be referred to the appropriate regulatory body. that is Ofcom.

Quentin

tremault wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but what you would find is that Ofcom would be very careful in providing a definition that would be used by any court or any legal body drafting these contracts. the definition used by Ofcom would be the definition referred to in any cases of reasonable doubt. to claim that the term is ambiguous would swiftly be met by an absolute assertion that it is not ambiguous and would be referred to the appropriate regulatory body. that is Ofcom.

Why would any court allow 3 to rely on Ofcom's definition of anything? If they wish to do this, then they would have to include this in the contract!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Best thing to do is try and get out if you can.

If Three won't let you out simply cancel at the earliest opportunity and learn from the experience. Either way they will lose you either by letting you go early or by you leaving and NEVER returning to them.

One you are out NEVER take out a "contract" mobile again. Keep to PAYG or SIM free and then you can hop ship if you are unhappy. YOU then have all the cards - they simply have the dud hand.