Unilateral liability in the contract
There are no complaints about the quality of the economic and optical internet service, it works really well, but it is unpleasantly surprising the unilateral nature of the contract - the customer is solely responsible for terminating the contract, then he pays a contractual penalty of 70 AUD and nowhere is there any case for action if the contractual obligations are terminated or must be terminated by Optus itself. I had a fixed-term contract for optical internet until November of this year, but I had to change my place of residence in April because the owner wanted to make major repairs. So - these are circumstances that are not dependent on the client (force majeure). As the Satversme envisages the right to freely choose the place of residence, I chose Pardaugava, and of course, I wanted to continue receiving the term optical internet service there, but,as it turned out, Optus is not able to provide optical Internet service at this address. It follows that the Party, Optus, is unable to perform this agreement and should have offered me the option to terminate the agreement. The company "chiepa", which I contacted by phone, immediately began to threaten with contractual punishment, and as a great welcome offered the economic Internet with a new fixed-term contract, from which it follows that my rights guaranteed in the Satversme Pty. Optus wants to impose a contractual penalty of 70 dollars or compulsory two years of slavery and makes me guilty of my technical inability to provide optical internet service in my new place of residence. However, it is easier to put a client in "slavery" for another two years. When I was reminded of the "chin", which already receives much more than the 184 dollars after taxes of an employee of the National Library,that I have had economic internet in my time, the modem has been preserved and can renew the old contract of indefinite duration, which could be terminated if the solvency were further reduced, which, given the state's aggression towards cultural workers, the well-paid employee did not hear about at all.. In general, it turns out that the right to freely choose the place of residence guaranteed by the Satversme may be imposed by Optus with a fine of AUD 70 and the customer is guilty if the company is technically unable to provide the service. When I asked these questions in writing in the "My Optus" section, for some reason the same "chin" called on weekends - on Saturday and incoherently said that they had not broken anything, etc. , a new (why not continue the old one if there is a modem?) very accommodating (although they were obliged to terminate the contract without any fines because they cannot provide the service themselves) it also fails to explain how I am guilty that Optus is unable to provide the contracted service to me at the new address. It follows that these large companies also act as an instrument of economic genocide against the poor and are subject to a matter such as a contract which does not apply to the rights and obligations of the parties to the ABU. Of course, it is interesting how many operators who disturb the peace of the holiday receive from the client for brainwashing, and already more than LNL employees with their 184 Ls. Sent to a lawyer. Then we will already see how fast the machinery of economic genocide is operating in Australia, in which the service provider is right, the customer is solely responsible for its failures and inability, and which allows to see the economic variant of totalitarian regimes.
Read more...
