Contracts - Rule Against Penalties - Apple and AT&T (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

ok, so I want the new iPhone (who doesn't?)

reading SMHhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/...s/2008/06/11/1212863694795.html?page=fullpage this morning, i noticed this funny little paragraph:

But Ralph de la Vega, head of AT&T Mobility, said Monday that it and Apple are working on "penalties" for users who buy phones and don't activate them within 30 days. AT&T could, for instance, bar buyers who repeatedly buy iPhones and break the contracts from buying more.

i get how repeat contract-breakers could be 'blacklisted' by AT&T or Apple, but i don't think they could write a penalty clause, at least under Australian contract law, if it is not a genuine pre-estimate of AT&T's loss in subsidising the phone for 30 days.

anyway, it's exam time, so i'm seeing 'da law' everywhere

 

[circusmind]

ok, so I want the new iPhone (who doesn't?)

reading SMH this morning, i noticed this funny little paragraph:i get how repeat contract-breakers could be 'blacklisted' by AT&T or Apple, but i don't think they could write a penalty clause, at least under Australian contract law, if it is not a genuine pre-estimate of AT&T's loss in subsidising the phone for 30 days.

anyway, it's exam time, so i'm seeing 'da law' everywhere

Surely they could impose a fee which is a genuine estimate of the amount by which they have subsidised the phone? That wouldn't be a penalty, and it would remove any incentive for buying the phone from one carrier then unlocking it.

(disclaimer: i hated contracts)