[Poll] Can a supplier terminate a service contract because of a negative customer review?

itachikonoha

@rcy026

It's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong,

It should be. Because ToS may not be forceable if it collides with consumer and vendor rights that are present in the jurisdiction.

it's simply two parties that does not agree. The customer always have the choice to simply no longer do business with the provider, why should the provider not have the same choice?

It exactly should have been the case. But difference is, liability is not same for customer and provider.

For example, tomorrow, all of a sudden, a provider can discontinue service to a customer citing the ToS. The provider till that point, has received payment for whatever the resources the buyer has used.

But in the same ToS, the customer may not get refund also. It is upon the kindness and willingness of the provider to receive the amount.

Both are not same.

ralf

@itachikonoha said:
@rcy026

It's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong,

It should be. Because ToS may not be forceable if it collides with consumer and vendor rights that are present in the jurisdiction.

it's simply two parties that does not agree. The customer always have the choice to simply no longer do business with the provider, why should the provider not have the same choice?

It exactly should have been the case. But difference is, liability is not same for customer and provider.

For example, tomorrow, all of a sudden, a provider can discontinue service to a customer citing the ToS. The provider till that point, has received whatever the resources the buyer has used.

But in the same ToS, the customer may not get refund also. It is upon the kindness and willingness of the provider to receive the amount.

Both are not same.

Nobody forced the customer to purchase that service. The company provides the ToS at the time of sale, the customer has the choice whether they want to agree to them or not. If they don't, they can take their business elsewhere.

The same is true with absolutely any contract you make with anybody in life. If you don't read it, or agree to it and then complain about it later, that's on you.

itachikonoha

@ralf said:

@itachikonoha said:
@rcy026

It's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong,

It should be. Because ToS may not be forceable if it collides with consumer and vendor rights that are present in the jurisdiction.

it's simply two parties that does not agree. The customer always have the choice to simply no longer do business with the provider, why should the provider not have the same choice?

It exactly should have been the case. But difference is, liability is not same for customer and provider.

For example, tomorrow, all of a sudden, a provider can discontinue service to a customer citing the ToS. The provider till that point, has received whatever the resources the buyer has used.

But in the same ToS, the customer may not get refund also. It is upon the kindness and willingness of the provider to receive the amount.

Both are not same.

Nobody forced the customer to purchase that service. The company provides the ToS at the time of sale, the customer has the choice whether they want to agree to them or not. If they don't, they can take their business elsewhere.

The same is true with absolutely any contract you make with anybody in life. If you don't read it, or agree to it and then complain about it later, that's on you.

That's a wrong concept. A contract has many limitations even if agreed by both the party at some point of time.

The ToS/contract even if agreed, if it clashes with existing consumer and vendor rights or any constitutional rights, then that ToS/contract fully or partially will be null and void.

rcy026

@itachikonoha said:
@rcy026

It's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong,

It should be. Because ToS may not be forceable if it collides with consumer and vendor rights that are present in the jurisdiction.

Now that's a legal question. If the ToS collides with present jurisdiction it is probably void altogether, and that means you have no contract with the provider that says they can not cancel your account either. Not having a valid ToS benefits no one, neither provider nor customer.

it's simply two parties that does not agree. The customer always have the choice to simply no longer do business with the provider, why should the provider not have the same choice?

It exactly should have been the case. But difference is, liability is not same for customer and provider.

For example, tomorrow, all of a sudden, a provider can discontinue service to a customer citing the ToS. The provider till that point, has received payment for whatever the resources the buyer has used.

But in the same ToS, the customer may not get refund also. It is upon the kindness and willingness of the provider to receive the amount.

But then the customer have accepted that ToS. If that is a non-acceptable clause, then why accept it? Again, personal responsibility, why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
I for one rarely accept any ToS that has a "no refund" clause unless very justified. I'm one of those strange persons that actually honors the contracts I sign, I have understood that a lot of people find this very hard to understand so maybe it's just me.

To put it very simple: if I expect to have the possibility to get a refund I do not sign up with providers that do not offer refunds. To me, that makes perfect sense.
Expecting a refund from a provider that does not offer refunds on the other hand, that just baffles me. How and why do people get that idea, I just don't get it?

nameserver

@cxplay said: Regardless of whether the supplier has signed an unconditional termination clause in advance with customer or whether the customer has done something unforgivable to the supplier, is the supplier actually allowed to do this?

I can go to Maccies and get kicked out if they want to. I suppose it's the same idea.

whether I was drinking all over the place or playing rubben's video out loud.

right?

Lex

@ralf said:
Nobody forced the customer to purchase that service. The company provides the ToS at the time of sale, the customer has the choice whether they want to agree to them or not. If they don't, they can take their business elsewhere.

The same is true with absolutely any contract you make with anybody in life. If you don't read it, or agree to it and then complain about it later, that's on you.

That’s not how contracts work. You can’t sign away legal protections just because a company wrote them into a contract. Illegal terms don’t become valid just because you agreed to them.

If the company doesn't agree with your review, they can decide to not renew your contract at best and let you know of that. The legal and mature way would be to contact you, try to workout a deal where you either delete or alter the review. If you can't be moved, they can sue for defamation but they won't win if your review is real and you have proof for whatever negative statements you made (stole my money, provided poor support, bad service, etc).

itachikonoha

@nameserver said:

@cxplay said: Regardless of whether the supplier has signed an unconditional termination clause in advance with customer or whether the customer has done something unforgivable to the supplier, is the supplier actually allowed to do this?

I can go to Maccies and get kicked out if they want to. I suppose it's the same idea.

whether I was drinking all over the place or playing rubben's video out loud.

right?

Wrong example. It is like a supermarket where you have paid in to receive a booth to get some service. The supermarket owners wants to kick you out because you are spreading internal events to outside (which can be facts or lies).

They can kick you out but, there will be laws guarding your interests also via which, either you can get refund or get the booth back be it in same place or at other place.

nameserver

@itachikonoha said:

@nameserver said:

@cxplay said: Regardless of whether the supplier has signed an unconditional termination clause in advance with customer or whether the customer has done something unforgivable to the supplier, is the supplier actually allowed to do this?

I can go to Maccies and get kicked out if they want to. I suppose it's the same idea.

whether I was drinking all over the place or playing rubben's video out loud.

right?

Wrong example. It is like a supermarket where you have paid in to receive a booth to get some service. The supermarket owners wants to kick you out because you are spreading internal events to outside (which can be facts or lies).

They can kick you out but, there will be laws guarding your interests also via which, either you can get refund or get the booth back be it in same place or at other place.

I mean providers in this case MXRoute can do what ever he want as long it's in the law of the country that comany is in. I assume. He will be a bad person, his company might considered as company not trustworthy, he might get hate, but it's allowed.

ralf

@Lex said:

@ralf said:
Nobody forced the customer to purchase that service. The company provides the ToS at the time of sale, the customer has the choice whether they want to agree to them or not. If they don't, they can take their business elsewhere.

The same is true with absolutely any contract you make with anybody in life. If you don't read it, or agree to it and then complain about it later, that's on you.

That’s not how contracts work. You can’t sign away legal protections just because a company wrote them into a contract. Illegal terms don’t become valid just because you agreed to them.

That's exactly how contracts work.

Why you are muddying the water talking about illegal terms, I'm not sure, but the vast majority of hosting providers ToS don't contain illegal terms. They state what is and isn't permissible, and a potential customer chooses to agree and take the service, or not.

If the company doesn't agree with your review, they can decide to not renew your contract at best and let you know of that.

Unless you have explicitly agreed to terms whereby you don't say anything to harm the provider. Such terms are very common in many contracts across many industries. They are not illegal.

The legal and mature way would be to contact you, try to workout a deal where you either delete or alter the review.

Or, you know, they could just follow the process that was laid out when the customer agreed to the contract.

If you can't be moved, they can sue for defamation but they won't win if your review is real and you have proof for whatever negative statements you made (stole my money, provided poor support, bad service, etc).

If the customer is unhappy with the provider, and the provider is unhappy with the customer, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for everybody to just part ways.

Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

ralf

@itachikonoha said:

@nameserver said:

@cxplay said: Regardless of whether the supplier has signed an unconditional termination clause in advance with customer or whether the customer has done something unforgivable to the supplier, is the supplier actually allowed to do this?

I can go to Maccies and get kicked out if they want to. I suppose it's the same idea.

whether I was drinking all over the place or playing rubben's video out loud.

right?

Wrong example. It is like a supermarket where you have paid in to receive a booth to get some service. The supermarket owners wants to kick you out because you are spreading internal events to outside (which can be facts or lies).

They can kick you out but, there will be laws guarding your interests also via which, either you can get refund or get the booth back be it in same place or at other place.

A "supermarket"? Where you "pay in" to receive "a booth"?

I literally have zero idea what you're talking about. A supermarket is where you go to buy groceries. You also don't typically agree to a contract before going to a supermarket. Neither do you pay in to anything, nor do they have any booths.

buggedout

@itachikonoha said:

@cxplay said:

@forest said:
"Can" or "should"?

"Can". This is because, in most cases, "lowend" customers actively choose suppliers but passively accept the terms.
Edit: It really depends on the terms of service. If you have to take legal action, the costs will be disproportionate, and most suppliers take advantage of this. And the most most that customers can do do and are economically acceptable only is to leave more "negative reviews".

Disagree though. Small claims court tribunals in various countries doesn't cost much. People don't pursue due to lack of awareness or lack of time.

I once paid for a online service about 1500INR and I was not given the product. I just opened a greviance with RBI and I forgot about it after some days. But I received my money back after around 40 to 45 days and razorpay had banned the account of provider. So maybe they dont even need to go for courts, like they can just sumbit a fraud greviance request with payment provider or central bank....

Lex

@ralf said:

That's exactly how contracts work.

Why you are muddying the water talking about illegal terms, I'm not sure, but the vast majority of hosting providers ToS don't contain illegal terms. They state what is and isn't permissible, and a potential customer chooses to agree and take the service, or not.

Unless you have explicitly agreed to terms whereby you don't say anything to harm the provider. Such terms are very common in many contracts across many industries. They are not illegal.

Or, you know, they could just follow the process that was laid out when the customer agreed to the contract.

If the customer is unhappy with the provider, and the provider is unhappy with the customer, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for everybody to just part ways.

Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

Those kinds of clauses aren’t automatically valid. In many jurisdictions, especially in the EU and the US (I assume other countries with electricity and running water have similar laws as well), contract terms that restrict honest (keyword, otherwise it's defamation) consumer reviews are considered unfair and unenforceable.

You can’t contractually prevent someone from sharing a truthful experience, regardless if he's an active or ex customer. If the statements are factual and can be proven, it’s not defamation, regardless of what the contract he agreed with says.

There are specific laws in this regard (CRFA in the US, Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), Omnibus Directive 2019/2161 and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) in the EU)

Y'all need to understand that just because something is written somewhere, it doesn't make it real (or enforceable). If the contract said that the owner can whoop the clients ass it doesn't mean the client doesn't have the right to defend himself (or accept the beating). Whoop ass is illegal (assault).

ralf

@Lex said:

@ralf said:

That's exactly how contracts work.

Why you are muddying the water talking about illegal terms, I'm not sure, but the vast majority of hosting providers ToS don't contain illegal terms. They state what is and isn't permissible, and a potential customer chooses to agree and take the service, or not.

Unless you have explicitly agreed to terms whereby you don't say anything to harm the provider. Such terms are very common in many contracts across many industries. They are not illegal.

Or, you know, they could just follow the process that was laid out when the customer agreed to the contract.

If the customer is unhappy with the provider, and the provider is unhappy with the customer, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for everybody to just part ways.

Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

Those kinds of clauses aren’t automatically valid. In many jurisdictions, especially in the EU and the US (I assume other countries with electricity and running water have similar laws as well), contract terms that restrict honest (keyword, otherwise it's defamation) consumer reviews are considered unfair and unenforceable.

Firstly, they don't restrict consumer reviews. They just say that any action that harms the provider is grounds for termination of the contract. The customer can review however they want, but if they do so, the provider might choose to no longer allow them to be a customer.

You can’t contractually prevent someone from sharing a truthful experience, regardless if he's an active or ex customer. If the statements are factual and can be proven, it’s not defamation, regardless of what the contract he agreed with says.

I mean, that's patently false. Many fully legal contracts have gag clauses.

There are specific laws in this regard (CRFA in the US, Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), Omnibus Directive 2019/2161 and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) in the EU)

And yet gag clauses remain legal.

Y'all need to understand that just because something is written somewhere, it doesn't make it real (or enforceable). If the contract said that the owner can whoop the clients ass it doesn't mean the client doesn't have the right to defend himself (or accept the beating). Whoop ass is illegal (assault).

And this is a bad example. For example, taking this stupid example, if you're paying someone to whoop your ass, it is perfectly reasonable for the contract that you sign to forbid you from defending yourself. They'd probably insist on you signing such a waiver in fact.

And again, the point I keep reiterating: Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

sk29

I didn't read all the comments but personally I'd leave a negative review once I'm off the provider and plan to never come back.

An odd comparison perhaps, but a few years back I left a 1 star google review 3 months in to my 1 year lease about poor maintenance by my landlord and they kicked me.

zed

jesus this thread, die.

itachikonoha

And again, the point I keep reiterating: Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

No one is answering that because your question is wrong. The customer doesn't want to. He is forced to.

Regarding why he wrote a bad review? So that others don't fall in to the trap same as him.

There are many dilemma comes in life where you need to continue relation with someone because you must but you warn your juniors to not to make mistakes that you did.

itachikonoha

@ralf

You can’t contractually prevent someone from sharing a truthful experience, regardless if he's an active or ex customer. If the statements are factual and can be proven, it’s not defamation, regardless of what the contract he agreed with says.

I mean, that's patently false. Many fully legal contracts have gag clauses.

Those are not gag clause but non disclosure close.

Rubben

Yes, with a prorated refund included. If you hate the service so much that you have to leave a negative review instead of trying to sort it out with the provider, take your money and piss off. Not even sure why anyone is surprised when a company kicks out such a customer.

itachikonoha

@Rubben said:
Yes, with a prorated refund included. If you hate the service so much that you have to leave a negative review instead of trying to sort it out with the provider, take your money and piss off. Not even sure why anyone is surprised when a company kicks out such a customer.

Because migration to another server not always that simple. It's not always someone's blog which could be setup in few minutes.

There's liability towards third party could be involved and it may take days to migrate.

I am surprised people ignoring such basics.

3K33

You gotta love LET lawyers

Some people here should consider pursuing attorney career

Rubben

@itachikonoha said:

@Rubben said:
Yes, with a prorated refund included. If you hate the service so much that you have to leave a negative review instead of trying to sort it out with the provider, take your money and piss off. Not even sure why anyone is surprised when a company kicks out such a customer.

Because migration to another server not always that simple. It's not always someone's blog which could be setup in few minutes.

There's liability towards third party could be involved and it may take days to migrate.

I am surprised people ignoring such basics.

Should have thought about that before the review no?

Also, of course not instantly, there should be a notice period defined in the ToS, just don't be surprised when you get the termination notice.

rpqu

Requesting @sillycat legal services

Rubben

@3K33 said:
You gotta love LET lawyers

Some people here should consider pursuing attorney career

is that what you're planning or is your company nobody's ever heard of bringing in enough profit to sustain you

3K33

@Rubben said:

@3K33 said:
You gotta love LET lawyers

Some people here should consider pursuing attorney career

is that what you're planning or is your company nobody's ever heard of bringing in enough profit to sustain you

I do well enough, thanks for asking.

However, nothing stops me from expanding my horizons, you should consider the same

ehab

@plumberg how is your penis impulses lately ?

ralf

@itachikonoha said:

And again, the point I keep reiterating: Nobody has yet explained to me why someone would give a company the worst review possible, and then come onto a forum to slag them off, if they're so good that actually the customer really does want to keep the service they provide. It just makes no sense.

No one is answering that because your question is wrong. The customer doesn't want to. He is forced to.

Regarding why he wrote a bad review? So that others don't fall in to the trap same as him.

There are many dilemma comes in life where you need to continue relation with someone because you must but you warn your juniors to not to make mistakes that you did.

I really think you are unable to read.

I asked why they would want to keep the service after saying they have left a terrible review. In this situation, it is THEM that want to keep the service. They are not forced to.

gleepdorf

everyone voting "yes" is a drooling bootlicker. christ.

plumberg

@ehab said:
@plumberg how is your penis impulses lately ?

We had a couple group goon sessions
So thats under control.

But theres no guarantee it will stay the same

Saragoldfarb

@plumberg said:

@ehab said:
@plumberg how is your penis impulses lately ?

We had a couple group goon sessions
So thats under control.

But theres no guarantee it will stay the same

Need assistance?

Saragoldfarb

Tldr; bla bla bla