Gym 'contract' dispute

SeduLOUs

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

The 'no contract' headline is ridiculous, but as it is the gym's headline, it is the gym who have to live with the adverse consequences, not the OP.

Perhaps.

I'd be willing to bet good money that a set of terms and conditions were signed though. Nobody joins a gym with only a direct debit form... how would you know what price you are 'agreeing' to pay?

unholyangel

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I think that is a rather dim response to the point. He signed up to a 'no contract' deal. If it is 'no contract' deal, he has not signed up to anything. Plainly, there is nothing he has signed up to, no guess work on my part and a point completely missed by you

The concept of a 'no contract' deal is an oxymoron. So the options are

• There are conditions, in which case it has been misrepresented as a 'no contract' deal and OP should be let out of it without loss
• There really are no conditions, in which case the 30 day notice clause is not part of the deal

The general line of courts is to interpret doubt in contracts in favour of the party which did not draw up the contract.

While I agree the gyms been wrong in calling it no contract, I don't believe it has the potential to mislead.

Would the average consumer be mislead into thinking a contract didn't exist? I'm doubtful that they would as it would require a basic understanding of what a contract is legally in order to think that there was no contract - and if they had that knowledge, then they should also know there is a contract, just no minimum term.

You might be surprised how many posters will say they have no contract - simply because they either haven't signed a document or because there is no minimum term.

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Of course there is a contract. But as the deal is headlined 'no contract', OP is fully entitled to assume there are no conditions. Equally, OP is entitled to assume that he gets a month's gym for a month's money.

That he gets a month's gym for a month's money would be conditions of the contract. Therefore, the highlighted statement is an oxymoron also. There are always conditions to a contract - even if there are none in writing. Also, there would be no assuming - an agreement must be certain.

Its going to come down to what OP was provided with at the time of contracting. Consumers cannot retrospectively be bound by terms. Nor can they be bound by terms they had no knowledge of at the time of contracting. If important details can't be communicated then a cooling off period needs to be allowed to achieve fairness so the consumer has a chance to read the terms and cancel without penalty or loss of prepayments if they find the contract is not what they expected.

DandelionPatrol

unholyangel wrote: »

That he gets a month's gym for a month's money would be conditions of the contract. Therefore, the highlighted statement is an oxymoron also.

That isn't "also" the oxymoron. That is the oxymoron.

Caz3121 wrote: »

It will boil down to what you signed
I think they would be better selling their "no contract" as a "no minimum term" or "rolling monthly contract"

I agree that it would be more honest to sell it as "no minimum term" or better as monthly PAYG, since effectively the monthly payment makes it a minimum month.
ument. We have OP's description here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=69478816&postcount=1.

OP says it is a no contract deal. OP is entitled to rely on that description. Any terms in excess of "pay for a month and get a month's use of the gym" mean that the sale has been achieved by misrepresentation and no penalty clauses can apply. The only option that the gym have as far as I can see is to stop taking the money and deny OP further use of the gym

DandelionPatrol

I'll go with OP as the expert on what he signed up to. It was a no contract deal. I don't know which other poster you are referring to, but truth be known, they are unlikely to have any more sight of waht OP has signed than I have.

It is simple. OP signed up for a [mis-described] no contract deal. Now either it is honoured as no contract [OP complains it is not being so honoured] or it has been mis-sold. If it has been mis-sold, everyone should be put back as nearly as possible to where they were before the deal was accepted.

It is straightforward logic. There is no point in seeing the deal, because we know from OP that the gym are saying that there is a notice period. We can take that at face value - we will be no wiser if we see it. The notice period stands in contradiction of the headline description. Therefore the contract has been missold and the condition is not enforcable.

We might as well shut this forum down if we cannot comment on what OP's tell us. No need for you to be insulting either.

unholyangel

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

That isn't "also" the oxymoron. That is the oxymoron.

The oxymoron you first referenced was in relation to the gym using the term "no contract" when there is a contract.

Thats a separate oxymoron from you stating the OP would be entitled to assume there are no conditions to that contract and then stating OP is also equally entitled to assume that they can get a months gym for a months money.

One oxymoron was on their side, one was on yours. Theirs related to the existence of the contract itself where yours relates to the conditions of that contract rather than the existence of it.

Marktheshark

No contract is a legal term in itself which refers to one party making the legal statement that they reject the offer to contract.
Not the smartest thing to write on any contract.

DandelionPatrol

unholyangel wrote: »

The oxymoron you first referenced was in relation to the gym using the term "no contract" when there is a contract.

Thats a separate oxymoron from you stating the OP would be entitled to assume there are no conditions to that contract and then stating OP is also equally entitled to assume that they can get a months gym for a months money.

One oxymoron was on their side, one was on yours. Theirs related to the existence of the contract itself where yours relates to the conditions of that contract rather than the existence of it.

They are essentially the same oxymoron arising from the one issue. Contracts have conditions, if they don't then they are not contracts. You would have to do extreme mental gymnastics to have either of the oxymorons without the other.

unholyangel

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

They are essentially the same oxymoron arising from the one issue. Contracts have conditions, if they don't then they are not contracts. You would have to do extreme mental gymnastics to have either of the oxymorons without the other.

Is it really that hard just to say "yeah, perhaps I shouldnt have said that the OP is entitled to assume there are no conditions of contract".

Contracts can't exist without conditions existing but conditions can exist without a contract existing. In fact, its necessary for conditions to exist before the contract exists.

wealdroam

BigBopper wrote: »

He's signed up, but hasn't signed a contract, signed a non contract, signed a health and safety form and dd but no contract. I'd like to see what you call inconsistent.

Does one actually need to sign anything to become a party to a contract?

DandelionPatrol

unholyangel wrote: »

Is it really that hard just to say "yeah, perhaps I shouldnt have said that the OP is entitled to assume there are no conditions of contract".

Sorry if saying that "OP is entitled to assume there are no conditions of contract" has upset you, but I don't see any need to say what you are telling me to say if I don't believe it.