There are plenty of cases where contracts have been declared null and void because of the behaviour of one or both parties. I would suggest that attempting to use these sorts of loopholes could be interpreted as unconscionable behaviour, something DaveNewcastle (who knows what he is on about) has also said.
Oddly enough I know something about contract law too:roll: I see you are changing your argument from one based on "good faith" to "unconscionable behaviour". Leaving aside that "unconscionable" has a pretty specific meaning in contract law, do any of these "plentiful cases" involving the (mis)behaviour of parties lie outside the areas where English Law has acknowledged "good faith" requirements i.e. employment, fiduciary and long term commercial contracts? And specifically do any apply to a consumer contract like the NRCoC? If so please let us know the details. Otherwise I repeat that we are a long, long way from a judge applying such a judgement to a consumer contract such as the BRCoC.
And even leaving aside unconscionable behaviour, there is plenty of case law where someone attempting to enforce a mistake in a contract has been found against in court. And ATOC always phrase their amendments to the routeing guide as "correcting errors".
While I accept that buying say a £10,000 car for £100 online may be reasonably seen to be a mistake by a buyer, I don't think that travelling from Mirfield to Leeds via Sowerby Bridge is such an obvious mistake to a consumer.
My point is I wouldn't be so certain that a TOC must allow travel by circuitous routes- attempting to undercut the fare on that route by 30%- just because they didn't prohibit it when the ticket was issued.If you believe the NRCoC binds the TOC to permitted routes at the start of the ticket validity,please point out where it says it
My point is that I am 100% certain - it is fundamental common law that the absence of a contract change clause in the NRCoC means that the contract may only be varied by oral or written agreement between both parties. A statement in the NRCoC is completely unnecessary.
It would be gross and utter incompetence on behalf of the drafting lawyers to omit such a fundamental clause if they wished the contract to be updated to reflect current versions of the NRCoC and the NRG.
Of course any such clause in a consumer contract would be subject to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and specifically OFT Guidance OFT311 (
long pdf), Group 10 Suppliers Right to Vary Terms, which may make it rather more effort for the railway industry to implement than its worth.
I believe that legal arguments based on "good faith" and "mistakes" are just the type of theoretical point scoring arguments that some lawyers seem to love, when the TOCs have the option to simply insert a contract change clause in the NRCoC. My credit card companies, banks and other financial service providers; utility companies; mobile and broadband suppliers; Ebay & Paypal etc. all seem to be able to manage it in their ts&cs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd agree with that, but it wasn't what I was saying.
Other posters here have said that Northern must allow travel via Sowerby Bridge because it was allowed when the ticket was bought, because contract law. That is what I was disagreeing with.
In reality Northern won't really give a stuff so long as you've given them an amount of money that's vaguely correct and have a bit of cardboard.
In terms of reasonable and unreasonable, I don't think that really matters. The Mirfield-Leeds ticket is still valid via Halifax, even though the Halifax-Leeds season costs more. The point is that ATOC/RSP have said you can't go via Sowerby Bridge.
Good, hopefully something we can agree on. I disagree you that the TOCs have taken the necessary steps to disallow travel via Sowerby Bridge to existing ticket holders but that seems to be for the entirely sensible and pragmatic reason that its more effort than its worth. I agree that they don't care a stuff beyond stopping it in future.