Vodafone: Breach of contract advice?

SteveT2008

Buzby wrote: »

And I don't believe it IS a 'new' contract - unless you have new contract number? Your contract did not 'come to an end', you just completed the minimum term.

There is also no requirement for the T&C's to be verbally disclosed - so this argument is a non starter. Indeed, you were covered by these T&C's with your original contract, you cannot then disregard them because they are 'new'. If you are looking for loopholes, these are not going to work.

Refer to my above posts^^ A contract must have what is called a 'meeting of minds' or 'mirror image rule' meaning both parties must be fully aware of what they are agreeing to. If the adviser did not say 'check our terms and conditions online' or send them through the post then the late payment fee cannot be charged... Also it is questionable, but would need to be decided in court as I am not sure there is any current case law which covers the issue, whether the charge would be legal under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

But as mentioned this is not a grounds for cancellation... unless you implied to the adviser the reason you were choosing this contract is that it did not have any penalty charges

SteveT2008

gjchester wrote: »

True, however the adviser can ask if the customer has read the T&C on the website, and that would count.

You could also argue that if someone was told they would recieve the paperwork in 7 /14 days and if it didn't arrive , and then they never queried the missing paperwork they are also at fault.

True I think I just mentioned about the website T&C's but as long as you received some some paperwork through the post you can claim ignorance and say you thought that was it, or as the phones only been out a month you could argue that this was your earliest convenience to contact vodafone and ask where it was and ask them to extend your 14 day return while you read it and then cancel.

_Andy_

naff123 wrote: »

Bump.

don't want this to fall astray

You only waited 30 mins !!!!!!

Silk

wantmemoney wrote: »

are you suggesting that a 18 month 'minimum term' contract is potentionally infinite and made up of many minimum terms of 18 months?

The clue is in the title "minimum term" after which it's not a recycle of 18 months but rather a rolling contract dependant on the minimum notice period as per the T&C's

If you don't cancel then it continues on that basis

SnowTiger

SteveT2008 wrote: »

It is not the customers duty to discover the terms and conditions, they must be notified to them.

Example if I sell you a phone contract for £29.99 per month and fail to mention that I can change the fee at any time (but this info has been available on my website for 5 years), can I raise your bill to £2000 per month with 14 days notice?

Think about what your saying before you give people the wrong advice!

My 'advice' to the OP was "Anyway, if those aren't the T&Cs of your contract, dig out the correct ones and put in a formal complaint."

What's 'wrong' with that?

Whereas your advice was "You do not have to pay these charges!!" I don't think you have enough information to offer that advice.

Rev

Do you regularly not pay your bills on time? If not then I don't see what why this stipulation bothers you?

I'm with O2. They can charge what they like for bills paid late because I always pay my bill on time. Have done for the 11+ years I've been with them.

Honestly. The only way this will effect you is if you pay bills late all the time. If not it does come across as if you're just looking for a get out clause.

real1314

SteveT2008 wrote: »

It is not the customers duty to discover the terms and conditions, they must be notified to them.

Example if I sell you a phone contract for £29.99 per month and fail to mention that I can change the fee at any time (but this info has been available on my website for 5 years), can I raise your bill to £2000 per month with 14 days notice?

Think about what your saying before you give people the wrong advice!

A PhD in law? And with that level of study you are using straw man arguments like this?

There's a world of difference between a £5 charge for reasonable costs due to the late payment of charges; and a £2000 bill per month with no justifiable basis.

Incidentally I am Lord Denham, having previously worked in every major statutory legal system since the Roman Senate, including the republican period.

Buzby

I overlooked your PhD in Contract Law - I now realise why you have such a perverse view, it based on a textbook understanding - nothing anything tat actually prevails in the 'real world'

You'll be suggesting that (a) any contract is unenforceable due to no terms being explicitly advised. Further (b) charges do not have to form any basis of the contract, indeed it is rare for any contract to mention costs to a minimum term. This falls to the Tariff, which should be read in conjunction with the aforementioned contract where the full responsibilities are brought to bear. (c) there is no requirement to sign to signify acceptance of the agreed terms, courts are happy to accept a single payment for the service as full indication of acceptance and compliance with the terms.

It is up to the consumer to decide for themselves whether they wish to be bound by the terms - there does not need to be this meeting of minds you clearly feel should form the basis of any contract!

Herongull

But SteveT is right - when a contract is formed both sides need to have a clear understanding of what they are agreeing. And any ambiguity in a contract is usually interpreted against the party who drafted the contract.

Legal textbooks contain discussions about caselaw - what actually was decided in real cases - not sure why you think this is not relevant to the real world?

Silk

real1314 wrote: »

Incidentally I am Lord Denham, having previously worked in every major statutory legal system since the Roman Senate, including the republican period.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
So funny !!!