Fahri

The case is not over!

Fahri decided to appeal the decision of the judge for several reasons. First of all, he argues that the the proposition that the CMA applies to the exclusion of the CPA is unfounded because there are no inconsistencies or conflicts between the CMA and the CPA because both laws deal with different subject matters. Therefore section 271 of the CMA which was relied on by the company was moot:

“If there is any inconsistency or conflict between this Act and any other relevant written law, the provisions of this Act shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.”

Aside from that, the judge should not have taken Fahri’s profession into account. This is because the CPA 1999 doesn’t differentiate between professions and Fahri did not enter into the contract in the capacity of an advocate and solicitor but as an ordinary consumer.

The judge further erroneously focused more on the fact that Fahri signed the contract and not on deciding the issue on whether the early termination charges clause was indeed unfair. He argues that it is unfair for a company to be able to bind its customers who no longer have an interest in continuing with the contract for various reasons and that in early termination cases, the company doesn’t suffer any losses or prejudice.

The existence of a standard form contract means that there is little to no room for negotiation as the contracts are provided on a “take it or leave it” basis. While consumers like Fahri and everyone else theoretically have the freedom to contract and choose between service providers, this is a false illusion because chances are, other standard form contracts will also contain the same early termination clause. 

Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, one thing is for sure, it will definitely be a groundbreaking one for all us internet addicts out there.