The BIG Hoo and Haa

I was just off reading this page from a link a friend gave me about the current DL speeds being tested on the new wireless networks. Nothing new but i happened to read a post about the author complaining about being tied down to a contract for four years whilst B-mobile dropped their price. Here is what I believe.

1) These contracts are 'normally' designed to protect and recoup the investment by the Telco. Notice I said 'normally.' Usually, most telcos abroad bundle things like cellphones, modems, routers, cabling, trunking, laptops etc with their isp services. These devices cost money and are considered investments by these service providers hence the need for them to tie you down (because you pay them MONTHLY) to a contract for X number of years in order to recover their investments. Now if we were to look at this from a legal stand point, there is an offer and acceptance and something called consideration (the investment of devices etc). It is a legally binding contract under both contract law and something the sales of goods acts that govern these. However, under the sales of goods act, there are laws that are designed to protect both the consumer AND the vendor.

Now, lets look at our local situation. Something i find ridiculous and stupid. Here, our ISPs (namely u know who),

a) Make YOU pay up front for their product (USB/router modem + laptop) i.e. full payment to them via cash or some loan (that is not provided by them)

b) TIE you to them for 4 years

Here... is where the stupidity and loophole lies. First, there is no consideration on their part to tie you to them because:
YOU have paid them for the product up front (even if its via loan because the loan contract is between you and the lender). In other words, their 'investment' in the customer has been recuperated up front. So, there is NO CONSIDERATION for the contract in this case. In reality, it is merely an unfair contract. This contract merely preys on the unsuspecting consumer making them think they are binded without any form of reprise (exit clause). Anyone has the right to terminate a contract given sufficient notice. The only contracts that i know off that cannot be terminated under normal conditions are leasehold contracts. AND if for example this situation was in the UK where the vendors did supply you with 'free' devices, to terminate such a contract was simply to pay off the cost of these devices given sufficient notice. This bit here is all under simple contract law. The purpose of an contractual agreement is to protect the parties on both sides of offer and acceptance with a given consideration (where this consideration can be an exchange of product vs money or some other benefit). There may be fine prints involved in the contract which i may not be aware off. ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT.

Now, lets look at the loan agreement between you and the bank. This is pretty straight forward unfortunately. YOU are binded because YOU took out a LOAN to pay for the goods. It is a fair and legal contract. The only way to rescind this contract is to pay them back the amount you borrowed (plus the interests they charge).

Note: This is not legal advise but just something for you to think about and to consult your legal advisor. Always seek consultation with a qualified lawyer.