No more 24 month lock-ins

OMG... why do we have to wait so long... should be implemented right away....!
 
rpm said:
No more 24 month lock-ins
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing the whole point of this article but you can already cancel X period cellphone contracts and pay the penalty and handset clawback fees. :confused:

Or are they suggesting that you can cancel the contract and not have to pay the remainder of the monthly subscriptions and only a penalty fee? If that is the case what's stopping the provider in enforcing a 'penalty fee' to the value of the total subscription cost for the remainder period of the contract?? Unless there's some governance in this regard by instituting a maximum fee cap I see no point in this proposed law.
 
Chavez said:
Maybe I'm missing the whole point of this article but you can already cancel X period cellphone contracts and pay the penalty and handset clawback fees. :confused:

Or are they suggesting that you can cancel the contract and not have to pay the remainder of the monthly subscriptions and only a penalty fee? If that is the case what's stopping the provider in enforcing a 'penalty fee' to the value of the total subscription cost for the remainder period of the contract?? Unless there's some governance in this regard by instituting a maximum fee cap I see no point in this proposed law.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This act won't provide any benefit to the consumer.
 
Creating a law for which is already in use?Beautiful
 
Paul_S said:
Exactly. This act won't provide any benefit to the consumer.
Click to expand...

In fact, I see this act making life very hard for consumers. Heck, why should someone even go into business with all this red tape? So there will be even less competition in the market and everything will just cost more.
 
One interesting example mentioned was security flaws in software. If a consumer or company can prove that a security flaw in software caused damage to their business they may have a case against the software supplier and vendors.
Click to expand...

Now that is more interesting than the 24 month story.

This is a :D:D:D law.
 
Chavez said:
Maybe I'm missing the whole point of this article but you can already cancel X period cellphone contracts and pay the penalty and handset clawback fees. :confused:

Or are they suggesting that you can cancel the contract and not have to pay the remainder of the monthly subscriptions and only a penalty fee? If that is the case what's stopping the provider in enforcing a 'penalty fee' to the value of the total subscription cost for the remainder period of the contract?? Unless there's some governance in this regard by instituting a maximum fee cap I see no point in this proposed law.
Click to expand...

My point exactly!
 
So as a small business owner of an IT company you will have to either raise prices to cover insurance costs or ask all your customers to sign disclaimers.

Makes running a business very expensive.
 
StbA said:
So as a small business owner of an IT company you will have to either raise prices to cover insurance costs or ask all your customers to sign disclaimers.

Makes running a business very expensive.
Click to expand...

I've spoken to a number of small businesses and they all seem to agree with this point. Raising prices to absorb the insurances, etc. to cover this is one thing, but a lot are afraid that they will get stuck in complex processes because of it.

IOW, it's not so much the early termination issue, but rather the fact that the whole value chain can be held responsible including the local company who resells international products.

One such company I spoke with install alarms systems. A small shop, but they have a good name here in Cape Town. Let's say they install an alarm system and for some reason it does not trigger and a crime results. They can now be held responsible for the theft or even a murder.

For a small company this can mean the end if they get caught up in complex and expensive legal proceedings.

So the ideas are being thrown about on how to protect themselves from this. Closing down smaller operations and joining larger groups is one as is the idea to form a company for every contract to limit liability to just that one contract.

Either way, it's a lose/lose situation.
 
Last edited:
vodacom3g said:
I've spoken to a number of small businesses and they all seem to agree with this point. Raising prices to absorb the insurances, etc. to cover this is one thing, but a lot are afraid that they will get stuck in complex processes because of it.

IOW, it's not so much the early termination issue, but rather the fact that the whole value chain can be held responsible including the local company who resells international products.

One such company I spoke with install alarms systems. A small shop, but they have a good name here in Cape Town. Let's say they install an alarm system and for some reason it does not trigger and a crime results. They can now be held responsible for the theft or even a murder.

For a small company this can mean the end if they get caught up in complex and expensive legal proceedings.

So the ideas are being thrown about on how to protect themselves from this. Closing down smaller operations and joining larger groups is one as is the idea to form a company for every contract to limit liability to just that one contract.

Either way, it's a loose/loose situation.
Click to expand...

That is why SME's should have personal and/or 3rd party liability insurance ;)
 
What is revolutionary with this ruling.. one can still cancel a contract today paying any cancellation and outstanding fees
 
Pitbull said:
That is why SME's should have personal and/or 3rd party liability insurance ;)
Click to expand...

As I said, it's not the cost issue. It's the whole legal process.

These kind of cases can go on for years and eat not just money, but time, attention and energy. And your insurance is most likely only going to pay out once the case is complete. Where do you find the energy and money to fight it?

Another small company I know recently closed their doors in a relevant situation. They installed a big automation system. (Their first big one and their 'big break'). But it did not perform to the vendor's specification (according to the client) and they removed it. Financially it killed the company.

I was actually asked to arbitrate and was happy the system did perform. But the client was a lawyer and he threatened to keep them so wrapped up in legal proceedings that they buckled and took it out. The vendor (quite rightly) said the system did perform and did not take it back.

So small company suddenly sat with a few R100K worth of second-hand stock. They eventually closed down with a big second bond on their home.

So, it's easy to say one should pay the insurance. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Those who own small companies doing big projects will understand. ;)
 
Not having read the act, I assume that once again we have a Redwood to kill an ant.

No doubt the only winners out of this will be the lawyers.

As a matter of interest, if a client signs a disclaimer, will it be enforceable?
 
vodacom3g said:
I've spoken to a number of small businesses and they all seem to agree with this point. Raising prices to absorb the insurances, etc. to cover this is one thing, but a lot are afraid that they will get stuck in complex processes because of it.

IOW, it's not so much the early termination issue, but rather the fact that the whole value chain can be held responsible including the local company who resells international products.

One such company I spoke with install alarms systems. A small shop, but they have a good name here in Cape Town. Let's say they install an alarm system and for some reason it does not trigger and a crime results. They can now be held responsible for the theft or even a murder.

For a small company this can mean the end if they get caught up in complex and expensive legal proceedings.

So the ideas are being thrown about on how to protect themselves from this. Closing down smaller operations and joining larger groups is one as is the idea to form a company for every contract to limit liability to just that one contract.

Either way, it's a loose/loose situation.
Click to expand...

Lose/Lose you mean?
 
vodacom3g said:
As I said, it's not the cost issue. It's the whole legal process.

These kind of cases can go on for years and eat not just money, but time, attention and energy. And your insurance is most likely only going to pay out once the case is complete. Where do you find the energy and money to fight it?

Another small company I know recently closed their doors in a relevant situation. They installed a big automation system. (Their first big one and their 'big break'). But it did not perform to the vendor's specification (according to the client) and they removed it. Financially it killed the company.

I was actually asked to arbitrate and was happy the system did perform. But the client was a lawyer and he threatened to keep them so wrapped up in legal proceedings that they buckled and took it out. The vendor (quite rightly) said the system did perform and did not take it back.

So small company suddenly sat with a few R100K worth of second-hand stock. They eventually closed down with a big second bond on their home.

So, it's easy to say one should pay the insurance. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Those who own small companies doing big projects will understand. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes you're correct. Never thought of it that way. The insurance only covers upon completion of the court case. There is other ways around it though like pleading guilty just to avoid long drawn-out court cases. But what if you are the party not at fault. I get 100% what you're saying now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X