"Telkom didn't pay me, so I switched off their tower"

Happy Days

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
1,033
Maybe Telkom just wanted to decommission the tower and this was the cheapest option? :unsure:
 

wingnut771

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
12,585
Most contracts have clauses relating to non-performance by either party including the remedies to be taken. As long as he exhausted those remedies prior to his actions he'll be fine. If not, well, its problematic for obvious reasons.
it sounds like he exhausted all remedies as in reaching out numerous times just to be met with silence, i think he'll be fine, and if not i'm sure he'll find someone to take his case pro-bono if they come with lawyers, telkom are loosing more than he is, possession being 9 tenths of the law.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
6,015
it sounds like he exhausted all remedies as in reaching out numerous times just to be met with silence, i think he'll be fine, and if not i'm sure he'll find someone to take his case pro-bono if they come with lawyers, telkom are loosing more than he is, possession being 9 tenths of the law.

Without knowing the exact extent of his attempt to get response from Telkom it would be conjecture to to state one way or another. It's unlikely though that a commercial agreement of such nature would have such remedy prior to at least serving legal documents, arbitration or court process but that's my 2c.
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
8,124
I wouldn't have even hesitated.

How quick are they to cut your service for payment problems without warning or anything?
 

FlashSA

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
8,977
Step 1, cut the power. Step 2 deny access to the property until all monies settled.

Then, let them choose whether to proceed with having their tower in place or remove.
 

Sollie

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
12,071
Without knowing the exact extent of his attempt to get response from Telkom it would be conjecture to to state one way or another. It's unlikely though that a commercial agreement of such nature would have such remedy prior to at least serving legal documents, arbitration or court process but that's my 2c.
Court & lawyers are not cheap. This reminds me of the old "sixpence worth of business and a shilling's worth of trouble".
 

Jtrinesr83

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2019
Messages
2
Just another example of the big companies teying to run the smaller people in the ground and using them.. Its freaking ridiculous.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,452
Didn't the government sell off most of its share in Telkom? AFAIK they own less than 40% so only partially a SOE. It's mostly privatised. I don't think they get bail outs?
Yes. They're a privately owned company now. No more an SOE than Shoprite is.

Most contracts have clauses relating to non-performance by either party including the remedies to be taken. As long as he exhausted those remedies prior to his actions he'll be fine. If not, well, its problematic for obvious reasons.
Only valid while both parties uphold their part in upholding the conditions of the contract. In fact not paying is seen as a material breach which results in a complete irremediable breakdown of trust.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
6,015
Only valid while both parties uphold their part in upholding the conditions of the contract. In fact not paying is seen as a material breach which results in a complete irremediable breakdown of trust.

I disagree. The majority of contracts these days specify remedial procedure in the event of a breach by either party which has to be followed and exhausted at each step. It doesn't obviously preclude the right to seek immediate or interim relief via legal means however my original point was that unless the contract specifically makes provision for the disconnection of equipment due to Telkom being in arrears the act of disconnection would be seen as prejudicial and premature.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,452
I disagree. The majority of contracts these days specify remedial procedure in the event of a breach by either party which has to be followed and exhausted at each step. It doesn't obviously preclude the right to seek immediate or interim relief via legal means however my original point was that unless the contract specifically makes provision for the disconnection of equipment due to Telkom being in arrears the act of disconnection would be seen as prejudicial and premature.
The way I see it non-payment would not be a provision of the contract. It's only a provision in consumer service contracts and I doubt the person would have included such a clause in Telkom's contract. Payment is also an area where Telkom has control so it's not a performance issue.
 

buffalobill

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
829
Why am I not surprised that he couldn't get a reply from Telkom? The call centre's useless and just a black hole into which all communications disappear. I really tried my best and that's the reason why we're no longer with them. Irrespective of his rights, shutting the tower down seems the only available course of action, short of going to court, which is the only other option.
 
Top