Under Contract with Starhub? You can terminate without consequence!

[MentisMortis]

Hi All,

I have previously written on this matter a few days ago. Somehow while waiting for a friend at Starbucks this morning I read the State's times and saw in the forum page some poor sod who said he pities those who have a 2 year contract with Starhub but now have a dud set top box that has no coverage of the EPL or BPL, whatever you want to call it, come 2010.

Funny how no Leeporters went to Amolat Singh and some other lawyers as Leeporters so often do, to get their legal feedback.

Since SPH is nothing but part of the vast network of minions of the PAP, Singnet and Starhub inclusive I will offer the same advice for those who are considering their rights as to this matter.

In any contract there are terms, if the sports channels are the main reason why you entered into such a contract with Starhub then that is a term in your contract.

The inability to supply you is a breach of a term in the contract and therefore as aggrieved party you have the right to terminate the contract with no penalties whatsoever.

I cited a simple example, for instance, if you are contracted for 2 years to Singnet as your ISP and singnet can no longer supply you with internet connection, are you going to follow through with the contract?
Are you going to pay $X a month for nothing?

The answer to both is a resounding no. No service provided therefore no payment required! Simple as that!

So don't be fooled by Leeporters and their ghost writers who are doing their masters' bidding by telling you that you have no choice but to pay for something that you are not receiving.

Mass termination is the only way to go when the time comes and if Starhub sues or threatens to levy hefty penalties, get a gang of 20 people at least and counter sue, you may end up with a tidy sum in return too. I am sure they would dare go so far.

Even if the Kangaroo Food Courts are told what to do, it will be ridiculous for it to follow instructions because it would turn the law of contract upsidedown and therefore render all commercial contracts in limbo. They dare not risk that in commerce dependent Sink-a-poor.

Cheers and happy sticking it to GLCs,

MM

 

[rickws8437]

I think you better hold on to your horses..If u read the fine small print u will see that they have included a disclaimer stating that they reserved the right to amend/add/remove any parts of the programmes as they deem fit.. So unless they totally discontinue the service, we are still screwed..as usual..

 

[MentisMortis]

I think you better hold on to your horses..If u read the fine small print u will see that they have included a disclaimer stating that they reserved the right to amend/add/remove any parts of the programmes as they deem fit.. So unless they totally discontinue the service, we are still screwed..as usual..

Hi Rick,

In any contract you cannot vary the terms of the agreed upon contract. They can try to say they have the right to vary terms but the law is very clear the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977 (UCTA) you will see that such clauses are non-enforceable.

If subscription to Starhub sports channels is one of the main reasons why you took up the offer and that is material to your decision in siging up then you can terminate.

Like I said why would you want to pay for something you are not receiving?

Most people did sign up for the football coverage, so once again, if they cannot supply that then the contract is voidable and you have the right to terminate it. No two ways about it.

Also refer to Sales of Goods Act (SOGA) where suppliers cannot restrict/change/include or vary an existing contract term so as to disbenefit the consumers, then refer to the provisions of UCTA.

Know your rights, CASE is nothing but a puppet not even a watchdog and even if it is a watchdog it has no teeth!

No one is screwed but Starhub in this situation and they know that. it's just the bloody Leeporters trying to con people into the "What to do? It has happened." mode.

Cheers,

MM

 

[Ramseth]

I think that under fundamental principle of contract law, notice and option to terminate or accept new contract terms have to be given for any change of terms, notwithstanding any disclaimer about rights to change terms. The rights to change terms is a safety clause in case the service provider needs to vary the terms without getting sued for breach of contract, but doesn't mean it can hold counter-party to contract even after varying the terms of contract.

 

[MentisMortis]

I think that under fundamental principle of contract law, notice and option to terminate or accept new contract terms have to be given for any change of terms, notwithstanding any disclaimer about rights to change terms. The rights to change terms is a safety clause in case the service provider needs to vary the terms without getting sued for breach of contract, but doesn't mean it can hold counter-party to contract even after varying the terms of contract.

Hi Rams,

I agree.

Yes this is the fundamentals of contract law. Many are led to believe that exclusion clauses determines the outcome of such contracts. It's the be all and end all.

Funny, I remember one case of a car owner's vehicle got smashed so badly in a carpark and the management pointed out to the sign that says owners park at their own risk.

They settled and paid for the repairs once notice of proceedings were sent. LOL!

I'm sure their lawyers must have told them that damage to property and loss of life or limb cannot be excluded from liability under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

But this, another similar case was rather shocking, I don't know if you recall the Town Council who had the rusty lamp post fall and kill a boy/child here in Sg. The Sg Courts ruled in favour of the TC. The TC stated that they have no liability since the boy was playing at the payground at his own risk.

But word is that the TC quietly settled for fear of an appeal and futher exposure in the alternative media and internationally.

Cheers,

MM

 

[Nice-Gook]

Hi All,


Even if the Kangaroo Food Courts are told what to do, it will be ridiculous for it to follow instructions because it would turn the law of contract upsidedown and therefore render all commercial contracts in limbo. They dare not risk that in commerce dependent Sink-a-poor.
MM

That depends.I mean quite relative to who you have as your counsel.As you would know the quantum of an individual contract here is quite small in this instance.Unless we have a class suit against Starhub.So in all probability an individual would be fighting his or he own case against the best of the legal eagle money can buy representing Starhub.The summon for order 14 would most probably be heard in a MC.Heard by an' under aged ' or a rookie bolumpa female assistant registrar.The mere sight of a senior counsel would bring pee in her panties.You can argue till the cow comes home to no avail.The case dismissed with cost.YOu LOOSE BIG TIME ;paying Starhub's legal cost -even if it is taxed.

Ah,I hear you saying how about small claim tribunals?Chew on this-big organisation send lawyers who are not practicing to circumvent their no lawyers rule.Besides,the tribunal do not decide on a point of law.

Its David vs Goalith here.Simply because we have no such thing as consumer rights.

Or fight the case.Legal fees nothing less than 5k.If the case drags on; which what the Starhub would do,than you must be prepared to shed about 30 to 40k to prove your point...Now who is the one who is gonna tie the bell on the cat's neck?

We usually just pay and simply shut up.Even the guys sued by Durai on the NKF golden tap matter did exactly that.You may be right but the cost of justice is simply prohibitive..

 

[rickws8437]

Woh.. Granted that what you are saying is that as long as the terms of a contract is being amended/added/removed then the contract become non-enforcable .. but in this case is it applicable? You may have to show proof that you signed on the package purely for the EPL etc..

 

[MentisMortis]

That depends.I mean quite relative to who you have as your counsel.As you would know the quantum of an individual contract here is quite small in this instance.Unless we have a class suit against Starhub.So in all probability an individual would be fighting his or he own case against the best of the legal eagle money can buy representing Starhub.The summon for order 14 would most probably be heard in a MC.Heard by an' under aged ' or a rookie bolumpa female assistant registrar.The mere sight of a senior counsel would bring pee in her panties.You can argue till the cow comes home to no avail.The case dismissed with cost.YOu LOOSE BIG TIME ;paying Starhub's legal cost -even if it is taxed.

Ah,I hear you saying how about small claim tribunals?Chew on this-big organisation send lawyers who are not practicing to circumvent their no lawyers rule.Besides,the tribunal do not decide on a point of law.

Its David vs Goalith here.Simply because we have no such thing as consumer rights.

Or fight the case.Legal fees nothing less than 5k.If the case drags on; which what the Starhub would do,than you must be prepared to shed about 30 to 40k to prove your point...Now who is the one who is gonna tie the bell on the cat's neck?

We usually just pay and simply shut up.Even the guys sued by Durai on the NKF golden tap matter did exactly that.You may be right but the cost of justice is simply prohibitive..

Hi Gook,

Yes, that's why I said get 20 guys together and proceed with a class action against Starhub. There may be a situation that Starhub may want to cover their arses too and not go to trial.

You see for a big entity like Starhub they would not want to have the negative publicity, for obvious reasons, the more publicity the more aware people get and more will jump on the band wagon.

So a trial cuts both ways too. Not everyone is a TT Durai or as dumb as he is.

If the mini-bombs is anything to go by then I see some hope for Sgeans trying to enforce their rights, I still have some faith in Sgeans' humanity and will to not be prodded and probed like some abducted victim of alien aircraft

There must come a time when Sgeans must stand up and not take this kind of crap nicely bent over and all lubed up, hopefully the time is now. With the growing discontent as it is, hopefully that will manifest itself, albeit in a roundabout way, into an all out defiance by taking Starhub to task.

The law is clear as I have pointed out it's just a matter of pursuing it. I agree on your point of tribunals, cost prohibitiveness and the SCT, yes often times non-practicing lawyers are used, I was part of that system ashamedly, I must admit.

The point is that the report and the forum letter seems to have this hidden agenda, that you have no rights and have to bear with the 2 year contract, from a legal standpoint that is erroneous and downright disgusting, that is my reason for writing this anyway.

But I am heartened by some brave people out there, a young woman comes to mind, she took a Nokia Service Centre to task, won her case, got a public apology, even costs and her phone repaired or replaced.

Now there's a woman with balls!

Cheers,

MM

 

[MentisMortis]

Woh.. Granted that what you are saying is that as long as the terms of a contract is being amended/added/removed then the contract become non-enforcable .. but in this case is it applicable? You may have to show proof that you signed on the package purely for the EPL etc..

Hi Rick,

At the point of conclusion of the contract did you include the sports channels? Or did you include it at a later date when you wanted to watch sports? If your answer is yes, then you intended to subscribe to those channels and pay for them. Sports channels are a separate tier under Starhub's packages if I am not wrong.

Thus your intent can be inferred that sports was part of your consideration to subscribe if you were not a sports fan, then you would not have included that package, am I right?

The breach is a matter solely for the courts to decide, if at all it goes to trial, but for the issue at hand, vis-a-vis termination of a contract for failure to provide content and the fine print that you have pointed out, the law is clear on the matter as I have pointed out.

Also note Nicegook's reply, he has a good point on cost prohibitiveness of the administration of justice in Sg.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

 

[singveld]

sound legally, but you forgot that it is a kangaroo court.

 

[rickws8437]

Hi Rick,

At the point of conclusion of the contract did you include the sports channels? Or did you include it at a later date when you wanted to watch sports? If your answer is yes, then you intended to subscribe to those channels and pay for them. Sports channels are a separate tier under Starhub's packages if I am not wrong.

Thus your intent can be inferred that sports was part of your consideration to subscribe if you were not a sports fan, then you would not have included that package, am I right?

The breach is a matter solely for the courts to decide, if at all it goes to trial, but for the issue at hand, vis-a-vis termination of a contract for failure to provide content and the fine print that you have pointed out, the law is clear on the matter as I have pointed out.

Also note Nicegook's reply, he has a good point on cost prohibitiveness of the administration of justice in Sg.

Cheers,

MentisMortis

Hi MM

Please note that I am also rooting for all the underdogs (all of us) here and also barring all other cost factors as mentioned by Nicegook the crux of this issue is whether we can terminate the service prematurely without incurring any penalties because of the exclusion of the EPL programme. I for one would be the first in line to do so but I have my doubts if it going to happen the way we want it to.

Please note that nowhere is it stated that the sports channels would be drop. As of now, we only know that it wont be screening the EPL matches next season. Can that be grounds for termniation of services.

It David vs Goalith alright, but at least David has a sling.

Cheers..

 

[Nice-Gook]

Hi Gook,



There must come a time when Sgeans must stand up and not take this kind of crap nicely bent over and all lubed up, hopefully the time is now. With the growing discontent as it is, hopefully that will manifest itself, albeit in a roundabout way, into an all out defiance by taking Starhub to task.


But I am heartened by some brave people out there, a young woman comes to mind, she took a Nokia Service Centre to task, won her case, got a public apology, even costs and her phone repaired or replaced.

Now there's a woman with balls!

Cheers,

MM

<style></style>You are right and wrong here.You are right in the respect that it is the bad publicity that an organization dependant on an average Joe's money would want to avoid.Why?Because it spells less money in it's coffer.Translated money is all that matters to these fucken blood sucking outfits...So you have to hit them where it hurts--less business thru bad publicity..

Besides your own lawyer can turn out to be your worst enemy.Why?Because if he looses your case he just lost you.But being in the good books of a big organisation brings more money.

That begets another question.Is legal avenue the only way to go?Nah.Why?Because organizations like Starhub has the luxury of time and money to fight their case to end of this world.It is not a question of growing some balls here...Myself had fought SIA on a airtight case but lost.Simply because our judges are beholden to kangaroo regime.It's that simple.No company aligned with this gahman would ever loose any case in their tuft.Any Sinkie ought to know that.

That leaves us with the only option.Collective actions or simply boycott.That too is not an option since it is Singtel or Starhub.Both the left and the right hands of the gahman--monopolistic....The real change can only come about where the consumer rights are acknowledged.And this gahman has no intention of giving consumer any rights whatsoever.Simply because their current fiscal policy is based on consumption.More the consumption more the tax revenues.The very reason to flood SG with more and more foreigners.

 

[yellow_people]

Yes, that's why I said get 20 guys together and proceed with a class action against Starhub.

This is a problem statement right here - Get 20 guys together and proceed with a class action against Starhub in balless Chinkapore.
Shall I prepare the lub as these Chinks get ready to bend over as always?

 

[MentisMortis]

<style></style>You are right and wrong here.You are right in the respect that it is the bad publicity that an organization dependant on an average Joe's money would want to avoid.Why?Because it spells less money in it's coffer.Translated money is all that matters to these fucken blood sucking outfits...So you have to hit them where it hurts--less business thru bad publicity..

Besides your own lawyer can turn out to be your worst enemy.Why?Because if he looses your case he just lost you.But being in the good books of a big organisation brings more money.

That begets another question.Is legal avenue the only way to go?Nah.Why?Because organizations like Starhub has the luxury of time and money to fight their case to end of this world.It is not a question of growing some balls here...Myself had fought SIA on a airtight case but lost.Simply because our judges are beholden to kangaroo regime.It's that simple.No company aligned with this gahman would ever loose any case in their tuft.Any Sinkie ought to know that.

That leaves us with the only option.Collective actions or simply boycott.That too is not an option since it is Singtel or Starhub.Both the left and the right hands of the gahman--monopolistic....The real change can only come about where the consumer rights are acknowledged.And this gahman has no intention of giving consumer any rights whatsoever.Simply because their current fiscal policy is based on consumption.More the consumption more the tax revenues.The very reason to flood SG with more and more foreigners.

Hi Gook,

I understand your reasoning but I think a lawyer who takes on a case has a lot to worry about should he not act in his client's interest. A lawyer can by all means decline to represent a client if he thinks there will be a conflict of interest be it personal in nature or financial, I don't think a lawyer would want to lose a case on purpose so that he can get into the good books of a quasi-govt entity.

I on the other hand, think that a lawyer will make his mark if he takes on the big guys and wins. The big guys would take notice and eventually want someone like him on their side.

Again I agree there are no consumer rights here, but with so many Acts already in force, on has to, in the end, take action on one's own accord. There can never be a reliance on CASE which is a PAP outfit to begin with.

Once again, I agree with your boycott suggestion, but then as you know Sgeans being the way they are this will never happen. A good majority of Sgeans will buy into SPH's aganda and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Once again, it has happened, what to do?

Cheers,

MM

 

[MentisMortis]

This is a problem statement right here - Get 20 guys together and proceed with a class action against Starhub in balless Chinkapore.
Shall I prepare the lub as these Chinks get ready to bend over as always?

Yellow,

I didn't want to reply at first simply because I am not a fan of racial slurs and racist posts.

But if you want to refrain from that and engage me constructively, I would be more than happy to reply in the future.

Cheers,

MM

 

[MentisMortis]

Hi MM

Please note that I am also rooting for all the underdogs (all of us) here and also barring all other cost factors as mentioned by Nicegook the crux of this issue is whether we can terminate the service prematurely without incurring any penalties because of the exclusion of the EPL programme. I for one would be the first in line to do so but I have my doubts if it going to happen the way we want it to.

Please note that nowhere is it stated that the sports channels would be drop. As of now, we only know that it wont be screening the EPL matches next season. Can that be grounds for termniation of services.

It David vs Goalith alright, but at least David has a sling.

Cheers..

Hi Rick,

It's not the issue of the sports channel being dropped too I think. They won't drop it for sure because if they do, they would stop charging people the extras they had because the had won the rights to broadcast EPL previously.

Personally, I subscribed to the sports channels to watch F1 and the Champions League on ESPN/STAR and EPL on the other sports channels. That is the package. But if they cannot provide this then I will no longer pay for something that has a totally different content from which I entered into the contract for.

Although I will have my services discontinued in the next week or so simply because I am leaving the country for good. I wrote this simply for those who think they are stuck and have no choice.

I am not under contract, as I have paid what they asked for when they upped the prices and cost a long time back. I can tell them to go stick it up their arses and not face any consequences.

It's the Sgeans that are now being prepared for a royal rump ramming that I am concerned about. Many wouldn't know how to get out of it and make their case for it.

So once again, if the content changes so much that it is not what you wanted when you subscribed, you have the right to terminate the existing contract.

An example would be, you buying mutton satay, but the satay man gives you beef instead, you cannot and don't want to consume the beef, do you still pay for it?

If no then you have your question answered.

Cheers,

MM

 

[Watchman]

Wow you can terminate a Starbuck product without consequence !

 

[Ramseth]

I understand that Starhub is planning to scrap their Sports package in light of losing their EPL broadcast rights. I think that they should be offering Sports package subscribers a downgrade to a lower cost package or a free opt out.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Hi Gook,


Once again, it has happened, what to do?

Cheers,

MM

<style></style>MM,this is off the cuff and digressing...But noble professions such as medical,accountancy and law has gone to the dogs...I am no lawyer but you are and surely you know the status quo of the legal fraternity here...The average Doc in a HDB heartland now does MM and pimp multi vitamins to survive.The one man accountants had gone the way of dinosaurs.Accountants make it big only with the big 5 who do 'creative accounting' for fortune 500.In short cook the books for big shots..Likewise,legal firms of 2 to 3 partners cannot survive anymore as individual litigation and criminal cases does not bring that much money to upkeep their status--except save a few.Only those firms with at least a dozen or so lawyers have some chance of survival.And they cannot survive without the patronage of big firms as their patrons...Perhaps shipping and Maritime lawyers are exception.

As the saying goes 'you are what you eat'..Soon any budding lawyer becomes as the greedy lot they keep company.To make thing worse ,any law firm that is not in the panel of banks or statutory/ quasi gahman is a sure goner...JBJ is an example.I rest my case.

 

[yellow_people]

Yellow,

I didn't want to reply at first simply because I am not a fan of racial slurs and racist posts.

But if you want to refrain from that and engage me constructively, I would be more than happy to reply in the future.

Cheers,

MM

The truth always hurts and no one is a fan of racist slurs, I understand that. Having said that the true reason why you would rather not engage constructively and simply just label those uncomfortable truths as racist slurs is that you rather not face the facts. Call them racial slurs and you can sweep away any issue under the carpet. My post was constructive. You may chose deny it but the very fact that you had to think twice before replying suggest that there is at least some truth to what I am saying.

From preaching about anti-competition and how Chinks should sue, you have reduced the argument to a mere 20 brave souls and class action suit. Not going to happen, not while we have a 75% Chinese majority. You can deny this all you want but this EPL saga is going to be shoved down the Chinks throats if not their arses. Actually its already been shoved up their arses. More shoving is on the way. Please continue to enlighten your fellow Chinks.

In dictatorial Chinkapore, market manipulation and anti-competition is the name of the game. The Singtel/Starhub EPL saga should not come as any surprise. Local Chinks deserve to be ripped off as they have been practically begging for it. I often find it amazing when Chinks berate about how the govt and its GLCs screw them over yet wholeheartedly fill its coffers to the brim and still have the audacity to whine about how they are being manipulated. Why not simply boycott as I do. I subscribe to neither ISP or for their rip off entertainment packages. When will Chinks learn to walk the talk?