Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Fine, he's moving somewhere where they only sell diesel, so he's got to buy a diesel vehical. Does that work, because really the details are irrelevant, so argue them all you want, as the validity of the details in my example are independant of my point.
The example is to illustrate that the change in situation is due to the OP, not the company who is trying to enforce the contract.
As i've said before if the original contract says they'd provide him with service if he moved then he has a point. If it doesn't then it's his own fault.
Hell, even if before he moved they said, "Yup, sure we can give you service there" and they can't, it's irrelevant as he/they are still bound by the original contract, which if it has no provisions for moving, probably means he is stuck having to pay it out.
|
I don't think it was ever a mystery that the change in situation was due to the OP, that's pretty obvious. The issue is whether or not the OP has a continuing obligation to pay if that change in circumstances has rendered the contracted services valueless.
If before he moved the company said that they can provide services at the new location it certainly is relevant. The fact that the original contract says A doesn't mean that affirmative acts by the company can't make it subsequently be read to say B. It's not an easy argument without corroborating evidence, but those statements wouldn't be irrelevant.