Well to start the ball rolling I though I bring this topic here
instead.
I just had a bad experience but I'm not sure if I could post this
here in case I get sued for whatever reasons. Anyway its about a
broadcasting media company which has decided to increase the
subscription price due to additional cost incurred to them even
though there was a binding contract. The particular organisation
claimed that the contract did not retrict them for any price
increase which I believe so. But I feel that from a customer's
point of view, they should increase the price becoz that will make
them lose the loyalty. Its so unfair and the contract seems to be
only in favour to the company and not the individual consumers.
When there is addititional cost incurred, they increase the price.
But what about when we the consumers decided not to absorb the
increase, we cannot terminate the contract which we are bound by.
How fair is this?
The contract came as a promotion with some rebates. I was also told
that subscription to their service is possible without any contract
as long as the consumer don't enjoy any promotions or rebate. So
why can't I terminate my contract even though I am enjoying my
rebate but now it has been use to cover the price increase? I
acutally sent them the above arguement and awaiting for their
reply. Honestly with my experience, I either don't think they would
reply or the reply would not be favourable. As far as I am concern,
once all my contracts are over with this particular company, it
will be time to say bye bye to them. Honestly I suddenly feels that
sometimes its best to just go back to basic. Go back to time where
we never needed such contract or such services. I have lived
through that era anyway so no big deal to me not to have them. No
more contracts is allowed for me.
