[i love sky]

Someone i know went to a phone shop today and got a contract phone and within a hour sold the phone but kept the sim.

the person had planed to do this just to get some money so its got me thinking is is right to do that?

this person will never pay for the contract and the only reason they did this was to get money for drugs.

[Stuart_h]

Originally Posted by i love sky

Someone i know went to a phone shop today and got a contract phone and within a hour sold the phone but kept the sim.

the person had planed to do this just to get some money so its got me thinking is is right to do that?

this person will never pay for the contract and the only reason they did this was to get money for drugs.

Well if they pay the remainder of the contract then fair enough. Otherwise its illegal.

...... but then again so are drugs.....

[madnes]

Originally Posted by i love sky

Someone i know went to a phone shop today and got a contract phone and within a hour sold the phone but kept the sim.

the person had planed to do this just to get some money so its got me thinking is is right to do that?

this person will never pay for the contract and the only reason they did this was to get money for drugs.

I have recenlty upgraded. I was given my same contract for £15.00 rather than £26.00. I was given Samsung Galaxy Ace as well. In return for a new 24 month contract with 3.
I am about to list it on ebay to perhaps earn myself £50.00 as I like my Nokia C7.
I aint doin nothing wrong. I upgraded and will be financialy better off once the phone is sold.

It is upto the network provider to chase him for any money outstanding.

[reclusive46]

The phone is technically a 'gift'. You are paying for the service, so the phone is your to do with what you please.

[Roush]

Originally Posted by reclusive46

The phone is technically a 'gift'. You are paying for the service, so the phone is your to do with what you please.

No, this is not the case. It is goods supplied in connection with the supply of services. The total price you pay for the supply of the services over the duration of the contract includes the cost of the goods.

Early termination of the contract would require the handset to be returned, and it is therefore not a gift.

[wrexham103.4]

Originally Posted by Roush

No, this is not the case. It is goods supplied in connection with the supply of services. The total price you pay for the supply of the services over the duration of the contract includes the cost of the goods.

Early termination of the contract would require the handset to be returned, and it is therefore not a gift.

surely early termination of the contract would mean you had to pay the reminder of the contract off, even if you didnt your account would just be passed to debt collection agency and then you'd tell them 'cant afford it ill pay you £1 a month'

[Roush]

Originally Posted by wrexham103.4

surely early termination of the contract would mean you had to pay the reminder of the contract off, even if you didnt your account would just be passed to debt collection agency and then you'd tell them 'cant afford it ill pay you £1 a month'

I was referring to situations where the contract can be legitimately terminated early under consumer protection statues, such as within a cooling-off period, an unfair price increase, or sustained unavailability of the service.

If the handset was truly a gift you'd be allowed to keep it regardless, which isn't the case.

Obviously, if you default on the contract you will be pursued for the remaining balance of the whole contract.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

No, this is not the case. It is goods supplied in connection with the supply of services. The total price you pay for the supply of the services over the duration of the contract includes the cost of the goods.

Early termination of the contract would require the handset to be returned, and it is therefore not a gift.

This is 100% wrong.

When you get a phone on a contract, the phone is given to you separately from the contract.

From a legal standpoint, if the networks were to consider the phone to be part of the contract then they'd be liable in the event that you lost, stole or broke the phone.

As it stands, the phone is your property and the contract only covers the SIM card and service. If your phone is no longer usable by you (e.g. because it's broken), then you can still participate in the contract by obtaining a replacement SIM from the network (usually free or supplied for an administration charge).

If you want to cancel, then you'll have to follow the procedure that the network's terms and conditions have established for that. Some of them might allow you to return the phone within a set period and to have either the whole or majority of the contract fee refunded, but it's more common that you have to pay the remainder of the contract in full - but you get to keep the phone. Statutory rights are quite limited in the case of mobile contracts with a phone included.

[Roush]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

This is 100% wrong.

You might want to tell the Office of Fair Trading that they've got it wrong then, as they consider the two to be linked.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

You might want to tell the Office of Fair Trading that they've got it wrong then, as they consider the two to be linked.

Do they? I'd like to see this. I suggest that you tell all of the mobile networks in the world what they're doing wrong!

[Roush]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ral/oft698.pdf

While this applies primarily to the DSRs, the basic principle is the same across other statues. The supply of the handset is covered by a contract. It is not a gift.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...ral/oft698.pdf

I'm sorry, in what way does someone going into a shop come under DSR?

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

While this applies primarily to the DSRs, the basic principle is the same across other statues. The supply of the handset is covered by a contract.

What basic principle? The whole point of the DSRs are to provide legal rights to consumers that don't make sense in any other scenario.

The facts are simple:

1) As soon as you get the phone, it's yours. You can do whatever you want with it, and beyond it developing a fault within the statutory period, the network has no obligation to repair or replace it.

2) Cancellation of a contract can only be done within the network's terms. There is no other option if you bought the phone in a shop, unless it was mis sold to you etc. Some of the networks will let you return a handset within a particular period (no more than 30 days) and be released from the contract, but there's no obligation for them to do that.

Outside of that, if you cancel, they'll expect you to pay the remaining contract amount and you keep the phone.

[Roush]

I think you're misunderstanding.

I'm not saying the phone still belongs to the network, I'm simply pointing out that it's not a 'gift' as such. The cost of the phone is factored into the total amount you pay over the duration of the contract, and that there are certain circumstances under which you would be required to return the phone, or otherwise compensate the network, if you wanted to be discharged from the contract.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

I think you're misunderstanding.

I'm not saying the phone still belongs to the network, I'm simply pointing out that it's not a 'gift' as such. The cost of the phone is factored into the total amount you pay over the duration of the contract, and that there are certain circumstances under which you would be required to return the phone, or otherwise compensate the network, if you wanted to be discharged from the contract.

It's clear that the cost of the phone is factored into the price of the contract, but from a purely contractual and legal point, they are not linked - for the reasons I listed above.

The circumstances you describe where you could choose to return the phone are extremely limited and there's never a situation where you must return the phone.

A gift can be returned by you if you don't want it.

[swordman]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

What basic principle? The whole point of the DSRs are to provide legal rights to consumers that don't make sense in any other scenario.

The facts are simple:

1) As soon as you get the phone, it's yours. You can do whatever you want with it, and beyond it developing a fault within the statutory period, the network has no obligation to repair or replace it.

2) Cancellation of a contract can only be done within the network's terms. There is no other option if you bought the phone in a shop, unless it was mis sold to you etc. Some of the networks will let you return a handset within a particular period (no more than 30 days) and be released from the contract, but there's no obligation for them to do that.

Outside of that, if you cancel, they'll expect you to pay the remaining contract amount and you keep the phone.

cancellation of a contract is not purely dependent upon a networks terms at all, no t&cs override your statutory rights

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by swordman

cancellation of a contract is not purely dependent upon a networks terms at all, no t&cs override your statutory rights

WHAT statutory rights!?

If you buy a contract in the store, and there's nothing wrong with the phone or the service, what rights do you have to cancel?

[Roush]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

It's clear that the cost of the phone is factored into the price of the contract,

A gift is defined as the giving of goods or services that does not require payment.

By accepting that the cost of the handset is factored in to the total cost of the contract you are admitting that it requires payment, and are therefore accepting that it is not a gift.

That is the only point I was making. A handset included as part of an airtime contract is not a gift, as it requires payment.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

That is the only point I was making. A handset included as part of an airtime contract is not a gift, as it requires payment.

A gift does not always come without strings attached.

The point is moot, and is not relevant to the OP.

[Roush]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

A gift does not always come without strings attached.

Indeed not, but when the 'strings' require payments to be made can you really claim it's a gift?

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

Indeed not, but when the 'strings' require payments to be made can you really claim it's a gift?

Yes, because as I mentioned, in receiving the phone you take ownership of it without any financial obligation related to the phone.

If I get a birthday present from my brother, I don't have to pay him for it, but I'm expected to get a present for his birthday. I didn't pay for my present, but I paid indirectly!

[Roush]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

Yes, because as I mentioned, in receiving the phone you take ownership of it without any financial obligation related to the phone.

If I get a birthday present from my brother, I don't have to pay him for it, but I'm expected to get a present for his birthday. I didn't pay for my present, but I paid indirectly!

What a ridiculous argument. Of course you are not under a legally enforceable contract to buy him a present.

Social expectations between family members have nothing to do with the contract law that we are discussing here.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

Social expectations between family members have nothing to do with the contract law that we are discussing here.

You can't have it both ways.

You either stick to contract law where the contract explicitly states that the phone and the contract are not linked or you can go with my analogy.

[Roush]

I genuinely don't understand where you're going now. You've accepted the phone is not a gift, which is the only point I was making. Then you started talking about a hypothetical situation with your brother which has no relevance, and now you're trying to make out I'm in the wrong again?

You've agreed with the point I was making, so I don't see a need to continue this.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by Roush

You've accepted the phone is not a gift

No I did not.

You have repeatedly made inaccurate statements about consumer law - that's my big problem here. Not whether or not it's a gift ("gift" being a word you chose, not me).