Contract amendment Telecom without order
April 4, 2011 | 35,00 EUR | answered by Dr. Dr. Danjel-Philippe Newerla
In January 2009, we terminated our contract with Telekom due to moving to a new apartment. The termination was confirmed but not carried out. Upon our inquiry, Telekom informed us that we had a minimum contract term until August 23, 2010, because we had requested a contract change in August.
However, we did not request any contract changes at any point, especially since we were already planning our move at that time. We have informed Telekom of this multiple times and only received a copy of the order confirmation that we never received in its original form.
After our move on April 2, 2009, we were unable to receive any services from Telekom and on January 4, 2010, we revoked the direct debit and reversed the charges for November and December 2009.
After endless correspondence, we have now received a court order for payment. We would like to know what are our chances of winning in court, is it worth filing an objection or would you recommend that we settle the remaining claim of €321.16.
Kind regards,
Bärbel and Wilfried
Dear seeker of advice,
Thank you for your inquiry.
I would like to answer as follows:
It is important to differentiate very precisely.
If the termination has been confirmed to them, i.e. if the termination has been accepted, there is generally no contractual relationship after the expiry of the relevant termination period and the other party would also generally have no further claims.
However, if only the receipt of the termination has been confirmed, this generally does not say anything about the legality of the termination. In other words:
The confirmation of receipt of the termination does not automatically imply the effectiveness of the termination.
Now regarding the contract extension:
Here, the other party must prove that they have requested a contract extension. If you have not requested a contract extension, the contract would still automatically extend, if you had not terminated it properly.
However, based on your description, this does not seem to be the case.
You also have an additional argument, as you mention that you were unable to receive services from April 2, 2009.
Therefore, you would also have a right to withhold fees from that point onwards. The prerequisite for this is that you have asserted the right to withhold against the other party, which I cannot infer from your description, but which I assume initially (if this was not the case, please provide a corresponding indication so that I can address it conclusively within the scope of the follow-up option).
Even if you had a minimum contract term and your contract contained an extension clause in the event of non-termination, due to the termination, there could not have been a (implicit) extension of the contract.
Furthermore, you have not demonstrably submitted an application for an extension.
As there are defense options available, I strongly advise you to engage a local lawyer for the final clarification of the factual and legal situation and potentially the lodging of an objection.
I hope to have provided you with an initial legal orientation and wish you much success and all the best!
I would like to finally point out the following:
The legal advice I have given is based solely on the factual information provided by you. My response is only an initial legal assessment of the situation, which cannot replace a comprehensive evaluation of the facts. Adding or omitting relevant information can lead to a completely different legal assessment.
I hope that my explanations have helped you. You are welcome to contact me via the follow-up option.
Wishing you a pleasant Monday afternoon!
Yours sincerely from the North Sea coast
Dipl.-Jur. Danjel-Philippe Newerla, Attorney at Law
Stresemannstr. 46
27570 Bremerhaven
kanzlei.newerla@web.de
Fax.0471/140244
