Someone inquired about getting out of a contract. However, this query is extremely vague as it could mean any of the following -
a) not wanting to perform any future obligations under the contract but not wanting to have anything to do with the other party either;
b) wanting to terminate the contract and recover all of some payments previously made to the other party, because of a change of mind about wanting the benefit of the contract; and
c) same as b) except that the other party is alleged to have done something wrong under the contract.
Option b) is normally not valid since both parties have signed a contract and it cannot be changed without both parties agreeing.
a) is possible but if you owe money under the contract, it is possible that the other party may sue you.
c) is the most likely option. There are 2 main legal arguments used to terminate a contract -
1. if the other party did something wrong before the contract eg made a false statement of fact (called a misrepresentation) to you, such as telling you that certain beauty treatment was compatible with the medication that you were on; or
2. if the other party breached an express or implied term of the contract which was an important promise in the whole contract.
However, in both cases, recovering all or some of your payments will require going to the Small Claims Tribunal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the success claims against misrepresentaion? My example to share: I entered into an exclusive sale agreement with an agent, but with the agent's assurance that it can be terminated with 7 days written notice. I understand i am liable for all the common terms i heard about exclusive agreements such as 90 days all sale due to that agent. But what i am furious about is it was not made known to me when i terminate using this 7 days clause, i am still liable to pay the agent commission??? If i had known, i would not have terminated the contract. They only made known to me with a letter about this one month after i terminated them!
ReplyDeletethere are people who are suing a spa company for poor service. The spa company are trying to come up with a new contract that takes away some of the entitlements enjoyed in the previous contract like the bonus credits as a new agreement allowing refunds per session of bad service is drafted. They are doing this at the negotiation arbitration stage and they have strength that they know the plaintiffs have no intention to go to a full trial for lack of resources and time and it seems good lawyers may be hard to find. The lawyers say the case is hard to win through small claims, is this believable?
ReplyDelete