"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Al35jl6grX3FFwF+@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> 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.

Ok, but would you still have a claim of £333 (or whatever) on a bankrupted
service provider? If not, why not?

>>> 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.

Perhaps we're speaking at cross purposes here. To me, "not being able to
pay" implies being bankrupt, as opposed to "not wanting to pay" which means
backing out on a whim. I'm not sure what position the OP is in, but I got
the impression that they couldn't pay.

But that's still that's not the point. Could you charge an early
cancellation fee to such a provider? Ignore the fact that you probably
wouldn't get it. Would it be fair to claim it?

>>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.
>>
> 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?

See above. In fact, I'd go further to say that the bankrupted party SHOULD
still be liable for services rendered (including subsidy on any phone), but
NOT for any remaining time left on a contract.

Shak