> this works differently in the US
No, it’s the same here. If you signed up with fake credentials with the intention of breaching the contract, it could be fraud.
No, it’s the same here. If you signed up with fake credentials with the intention of breaching the contract, it could be fraud.
Q: So, Mr. Defendant, when you signed up for this service, did you intend to pay?
A: Yes
Q: And did you pay?
A: Yes
Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?
A: Yes
Q: And why did you do that?
A: I was tired of the service, and they made it almost impossible to cancel.
At that point, the prosecution drops the case.
But hey, if you want to keep paying for a shitty service you don't want anymore because you can't jump through all their hoops... well, you do you.
I didn't see anything about EU compliance in the relevant news (and it was relatively big news for such a quotidian change). Possibly the number of people with useless gym etc. memberships after corona was the last straw - these were often 2-3y autorenewing contracts, for fairly large amounts.
My strategy: Fire off an email to whatever billing email is on there, say "I will not be renewing this insurance", and cancel the direct debit. They will try to charge, send a couple letters, and it's all safe to ignore because I've stated my intent to cancel in time.
Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?
A: Yes.
Q: Despite your contractual obligation to pay?
A: yes, but they made it impossible to can...
Judge: You must only answer the question.
Contracts can be unconscionable or otherwise illegal.
Q: But eventually you cancelled the credit card?
A: Yes.
Q: Despite your contractual obligation to pay?
Defense counsel: Objection, your honor. Leading the witness.
Judge: sustained
Want to try again?
You're right about one thing, though; it's much briefer. All the lawyer says is "Objection. Leading." They do it so much that they don't waste words like on TV.
So in at least some civil cases, one side can request a jury trial. I'm not sure in which ones.
And no, the judge is not going to say "you must only answer the question" if you answer that way; "when did you stop beating your wife?" doesn't actually work in a court of law.
Regardless, even if you did have a contractual obligation to pay, but found it impossible to cancel (assuming you're allowed to cancel without penalty), you could pretty safely answer "Yes" to that last question, and then your own lawyer would then expose the whole impossible-to-cancel situation when it's their turn to question you. Court of law isn't this "haha, gotcha!" thing.
If there's an issue about whether a question is admissible, the lawyers argue it. If the judge decides it is, they just say "Overruled; answer the question."
That's why your lawyer will tell you to look at them before answering.
Agreed, someone would have to be egregious to attract prosecutorial attention. But for a civil judgement, using a temporary card with a fake name that is cancelled without notice (particularly if a discount was offered up front in exchange for commitment) is going to weigh in the plaintiff's favor. That, in turn, factors into e.g. credit agencies when considering taking such items off a report after the debt collector who bought it begins collections.
TL; DR This is a fine strategy. But try to cancel using the service's means. If they force you through loopholes, fire off an email and carry on. None of this is legal advice. But it does seem like the courteous thing to do.
https://www.internations.org/about-internations/
see the reviews complaining about them
https://www.reviews.io/company-reviews/store/internations-or...