Orange Error in Contract

tp1988

Hi

I upgraded my phone 6 months ago and asked for a 18 month contract which was given to me. However i have received letters from orange stating it is actually a 24M Contract and not a 18M.

The paperwork given to me at the time of purcahse and which i have signed show it as a 18M Contract.

My Question is do i have any way of cancellation this if orange refuse to honour their contract?

Thanks

grumbler

If your copy says 18 months, then you can cancel after 18 months. That's what contracts are for.

Guys_Dad

grumbler wrote: »

If your copy says 18 months, then you can cancel after 18 months. That's what contracts are for.

............Unless you upgraded early, in which case the remaining time from your original contract will have been added to the 18 months.

SimonD316

When I upgraded early a couple of years ago I ended up with a contract that stated it was for 27 months.

The account feature of the orange website is actually fairly decent and will allow you to check when your contract runs out, have you looked at this?

Buzby

There is actually no such thing as a 'x month contract'.

ALL contracts have no end date, they will run until the customer (or network, on rare occasions) advises they wish to terminate.

A very small part of be contract may include a minimum term, which the network uses to lock in the customer to the agreement in order for them to recover the cost of any incentive (cheap tariff) or inducement (discounted or free handset) as part of the agreement.

Minimum terms were usually 12 months, but as the inducements got bigger, they increased to 18, then 24 - some even went longer until the regulator outlawed them for non-business use. The average period is 18 months, and the consumer rarely (if ever, these days) can stipulate his preferred option. (For example, if you opted for a shorter minimum term, you paid more for the handset up front).

As contracts have no fixed term, it is grossly misleading to suggest it is an '18 month' contract, this is bogus, and fools consumers into believing that all they do is stop paying when the time is up.

The problems this causes are commonly discussed here!

prowla

I think that it is generally accepted that "18-month", "24-month", or "whatever-month" refers to the minimum term agreed.

Buzby

prowla wrote: »

I think that it is generally accepted that "18-month", "24-month", or "whatever-month" refers to the minimum term agreed.

I think you'll find it s only 'generally accepted' by those who hav read and understand their contract. This forum is littered with horror stories of ruined credit files and DCA pursuits because some users persist in misleadingly stating - or using a shorthand description that gives a false impression?

This is a consumer forum, and any ambiguity needs to be explained and/or hilighted. There IS no 18 month contract, period!

Guys_Dad

Buzby wrote: »

I think you'll find it s only 'generally accepted' by those who hav read and understand their contract. This forum is littered with horror stories of ruined credit files and DCA pursuits because some users persist in misleadingly stating - or using a shorthand description that gives a false impression?

This is a consumer forum, and any ambiguity needs to be explained and/or hilighted. There IS no 18 month contract, period!

Well, it is the terminology used by the networks and vendors as well, so "it is generally accepted" is, in fact correct.

It is also "often misunderstood" and, although you are 100% correct, in this context on this thread it is not a contentious issue and perfectly reasonable to revert to common use and understanding. :beer:

prowla

Buzby wrote: »

I think you'll find it s only 'generally accepted' by those who have read and understand their contract. This forum is littered with horror stories of ruined credit files and DCA pursuits because some users persist in misleadingly stating - or using a shorthand description that gives a false impression?

This is a consumer forum, and any ambiguity needs to be explained and/or highlighted. There IS no 18 month contract, period!

Yes, I see what you are saying.

And to be more precise, we could refer to it as a minimum 18-month contract.

But I think the minimum is implied.

(It's like we have a hoover - it's made by Dyson, but it's still a hoover.)

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

There IS no 18 month contract, period!

So, are you really suggesting to use every time "contract with 18 month minimum term" instead of "18 month contract"?
Are you serious?
IMO you are tilting at windmills.

The same applies to the term 'rolling contract' that you dislike.

Buzby

grumbler wrote: »

The same applies to the term 'rolling contract' that you dislike.

Because it is equally misleading? Once it becomes accepted that you can call anything by any name ('Free calls' instead of 'inclusive' - best yet, 'unlimited' when a 'fair use' policy negates it) you're playing into the hands of the marketers who WANT to establish the misinformation as a 'standard' as it (a) makes their product appear better than it actually is, and (b) fools those who take the term as a valid indication as to their commitment?

We don't have to play this game - and I don't. Where will it end? Destination boards on buses showing the usual destination but after paying your fare, you are told it isn't actually going there - but stopping 3 miles short?

The more that resist and point out the true situation, the quicker this nonsense will end. Sure, those touting 'rolling' contracts (where the contract does nothing of the sort) would never market them as never-ending contracts, yet that is what they are.

THose that get caught - and there are many - are sometimes told on here 'that's the way it is, you should have known'. I take the charitable view that it was not transparent, but should have been - so if a contract is not fixed term, rolling or otherwise it MUST be correctly described, otherwise it cannot be enforced.

That would sort the problem at a stroke!