On Feb 21, 2:06 pm, "Shak" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Mark Hewitt" <nom...@here.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chris Morrison" <hid...@nospam.priv> wrote in message
> >news:1171896167_4857@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> >> Locking someone into a contract for 18 months and charging them £300+ to
> >> get out of it is immoral,
> >> punitive and unfair.
>
> > Why? You you understand what 'contract' actually means?
>
> >> Surely this must come under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
> >> Regulations
> >> 1999 or some such.
>
> > Why is it unfair, it's perfectly reasonable that she agreed to pay an
> > amount every month for 18 months, in return for a product and service,
> > they've kept their end of the bargain so why should she not be requiredto
> > keep hers?
>
> So if a network goes bust for some reason and is then unable to provide
> further service, would they then owe you money for any remaining contract
> you have?
>
> Shak- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course not -- unless you'd paid the entire 18 months line rental up
front -- in which (unlikely) case you'd be an unsecured creditor and
you'd join the long list of other unsecured people/companies who
wouldn't get paid... much like if the OP's 'friend' went brankrupt,
Three would be unlikely to get a penny.

All hypothetical of course, since you don't pay for 18 months up-
front, and any telco that was going bust would likely be snapped up by
a competitor for either its customers and/or infrastructure.