"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:aHcfbDxPIH3FFwlK@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <54322eF1uo9okU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
> writes
>>"Mark Hewitt" <nomail@here.com> wrote in message
>>news:1172060129.658638@ucsnew2.ncl.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> 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 required
>>> to
>>> 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?
>>
> They would be in breach of contract but they would not owe you any money
> as you would not have paid them for that period in advance. What they
> would owe you is a service in exchange for the money that you were due to
> pay but as they were no longer able to provide the service you would
> presumably stop paying them the money.
>
> In this case the service provider is still willing and able to provide the
> contracted service so by not paying it is the user who is in breach of the
> contract and the provider therefore has a right to pursue them for the
> money.

Ok. So a service provider can break a contract, walking away without
penalty, if they're no longer able to provide that service?

If so, I think that it's fair that a customer who can't pay should be able
to do the same, provided they will no longer use the service from that point
onwards as well. The promise to subscribe is only as strong as the promise
to provide a service IMO.

Shak