18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
Page 2 - 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors. Discuss 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors, on Wireless Forums.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
> 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.
so what you seem to be saying is, people should be free to sign a contract
for a specified period of time, and then if they fancy walk away after a
couple of months?
that would render the whole system unworkable.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"Paul Harris" <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:WHVcLxAqYb3FFwka@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <545oh8F1vl1r9U1@mid.individual.net>, Shak <me@privacy.net>
> writes
>>"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
>
>>>>> 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?
>>
> You would have a contractual right to the service and could try to claim
> compensation for failure to provide that service as the company would be
> in breach of contract. But IMHO it would be a pointless exercise trying
> to claim against a bankrupt company that no longer traded. Similarly if
> the OP's friend went bankrupt the service provider would probably write of
> the loss and not bother to pursue them further.
>
[snip rest]
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"the dog from that film you saw" <dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote
in message news:545vqvF1vabg2U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Shak" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:5456bmF1uuqruU2@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> so what you seem to be saying is, people should be free to sign a contract
> for a specified period of time, and then if they fancy walk away after a
> couple of months?
> that would render the whole system unworkable.
>
No, all I was questioning was the parity and so fairness of the contract. If
a contract provider is liable to provide for the remaining contract, then
sure, so should the consumer.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk declared for all the world to hear...
> In article <HweDh.25201$3a3.18338@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
> ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com (Ken Ward) wrote:
>
> > >> Not aware of a cellphone network ever going bust
> >
> > RABBIT?
>
> 1) Wasn't a cellular Telephone system/network
> 2) Was owned by the same people as, and subsumed into, Orange
And it didn't go bust, it was closed down deliberately.
--
Regards
Jon
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.204831f94a08898998a789@text.usenet.plus.n et...
> agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk declared for all the world to hear...
>> In article <HweDh.25201$3a3.18338@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
>> ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com (Ken Ward) wrote:
>>
>> > >> Not aware of a cellphone network ever going bust
>> >
>> > RABBIT?
>>
>> 1) Wasn't a cellular Telephone system/network
>> 2) Was owned by the same people as, and subsumed into, Orange
>
> And it didn't go bust, it was closed down deliberately.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20070223000544.2120C@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
> In article <83qDh.36169$Fm2.18840@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
> ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com (Ken Ward) wrote:
>
>> > And it didn't go bust, it was closed down deliberately.
>>
>> Did it not tx into a local cell?
>
> It was a Cordless Telephone standard, not a cellular system. No
> incoming calls, no cell handoff etc.
>
> http://www.walrus.co.uk/petes/petes2.htm
it was like a telephone equivalent of wifi - you had to be near the station.
i bet in years to come we'll look back at all these wifi hotspots with the
same sense of bemusement.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
"the dog from that film you saw" <dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote
in message news:547k1iF1vghksU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.20070223000544.2120C@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
>> In article <83qDh.36169$Fm2.18840@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
>> ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com (Ken Ward) wrote:
>>
>>> > And it didn't go bust, it was closed down deliberately.
>>>
>>> Did it not tx into a local cell?
>>
>> It was a Cordless Telephone standard, not a cellular system. No
>> incoming calls, no cell handoff etc.
>>
>> http://www.walrus.co.uk/petes/petes2.htm
>
>
>
>
> it was like a telephone equivalent of wifi - you had to be near the
> station.
> i bet in years to come we'll look back at all these wifi hotspots with the
> same sense of bemusement.
My Nokia 6630 does not work when it is out of range.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:19:18 -0000, "Matt Wheeler"
<spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Seems like she is refusing to pay though...
>On signing up she comitted to a minimum term of 18 months. With that
>in mind, 3 has every right to expect her to pay the line rental for
>the full 18 months, or a suitable cancellation fee, which will likely
>add up to the same thing.
Why the same thing? Seems like we might get into 'bank overcharging'
territory here; if she breaches her contract then the telco is only
entitled to claim the actual costs to them - the 'cancellation fee'
can only reflect what it actually costs them to administratively
terminate the contract. If the phone was 'free', for example, they
would have to show that they hadn't recovered their costs for it, if
they wanted to add some charge for that. Excessive punitive charges
wouldn't be allowed by the courts, and the telco would be unlikely to
chance it.
It's not like a loan where they've actually paid her money which they
are entitled to recover.
Re: 18 month mobile phone contract with 3 and the rights of debt collectors 
Linear Mode
