In message <5456kkF1usgbeU1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
writes
>"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
>> "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

>>>>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?
>>
No they can't, that would only happen if they have been liquidated as a
result of being bankrupt, not just because it is inconvenient. A
contract is a legal document and one should think carefully before
committing ones self and that applies to both sides of the deal.

>> 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.
>>
If the OP's friend goes bankrupt then the service provider would
probably not get paid but if they have not gone bankrupt they still have
to meet the obligations of the contract that they entered into. There
is no point in the providers having different contracts for different
periods if they just let people walk away when it suits them. If you
enter into a 18 month contract you get different terms to those you
would get in a 12 month contract. It appears that you think it is
acceptable to say after X months I can't afford it anymore or have
changed my mind so I wish to just stop paying and cancel now with no
penalty.
>
>I should add that this presumes aother parts of the contract have been
>settled, like the payment of services already used (not sure how that would
>work since we usually pay in advance anyway) and covering the cost of any
>subsidised phone.
>
You don't seem to appreciate that a contract for a service for 12 or 18
months is not negotiable after you have started unless both parties
agree. Say there are two deals, one gives 400 mins. a month and the
other gives 600 mins. Both with the same phone and same service
supplier. The former is for 12 months and the later with the additional
minutes is for 18 months. Should someone be allowed to sign up for the
18 month deal, use 600 mins. a month for twelve months and then say I
wish to stop paying now because I can't afford it and just cancel the
contract. If you think it is acceptable what is to stop the
unscrupulous from signing up to the 18 month contract, getting the
additional benefits and then pulling out after twelve months?
--
Paul Harris