3 ms·

>Moreover, lifetime service contracts sold for a one time fee should always be regarded with a fiercely critical eye: without recurring revenue, how is the serv

>Moreover, lifetime service contracts sold for a one time fee should always be regarded with a fiercely critical eye: without recurring revenue, how is the service provider realistically going to be able to provide that service at a profit indefinitely? At some point, they ARE going to drop it, or they've figured out a way to use that service to drive additional profits. The fact that FastMail management at that time made the (very) poor business decision to offer lifetime service for a one time fee is NOT MY PROBLEM. Now, I'll just repeat verbatim what I said in the other thread. > FastMail made an agreement - $15 in exchange for a lifetime member account. >Now they don't want to honour that agreement. >And they've created work for me: What to do about my father's email account? >I have his email address as part of the domain that I have associated with my (legacy) FastMail enhanced account. They've discontinued family accounts for new signups. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14357905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14357905

quakenul 9y ago
It is your problem. Which you can now take to court and likely expect to get some form of compensation, since FastMail is in violation of your agreement. I do realize putting "lifetime" on anything brings heavy emotional weight. But in the end it's simply another contract which, even without any malintent, get broken all the time. If you are the damaged party you can use the legal system to seek damages, if you feel the inflicted damage warrants going through the trouble.
- delhanty 9y ago
  FastMail and you know it's not worth my time to take them to court for $15. Besides FastMail is in Australia, my father is in the UK and I am in Japan ... Also, would the court order FastMail to continue to offer service to my father, which is what I want. I very much doubt that. FastMail would just be allowed to make the offer of the $15 plus some half-price deal on another plan, which they have done already. On the other hand, companies do seem to rather dislike bad publicity. So when they try and back-out of past agreements and contacts that no longer suit them, it is far more effective to call them out publicly on forums like this one.
  - quakenul 9y ago
    Fair enough :) I understand the trouble that goes along with any "small time" contract breach and if this dissuades companies from doing something like it in the future, I am all for it.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    I'd think the court would rule that the company should cover your costs incurred as a result of breaking the contract - i.e. they'd either be required to provide the plan for life or cover a plan elsewhere.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > FastMail and you know it's not worth my time to take them to court for $15. Now, I don't know the details of the contract, but generally, the value this is about is not $15. The value is the damage caused by them failing to fulfill their contracts, which would be the discounted value of the market price of all future payments needed to replace their failure to perform. There is no general legal option for one party to a contract to simply pull out and give you back your money. They owe you what they promised in the contract, and if they don't deliver, they are liable for the damage that that causes for you.
    - delhanty 9y ago
      Good theoretical point! If this was about serious money, that's how my lawyer would argue it. But for $15 I'm not going to try that in a small claims court in the UK say. I've been there once and the judge was one of the most condescending, pompous dimwits that I'd ever encountered.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > But for $15 I'm not going to [...] Just wondering: Where did those $15 come from?
        stevenwliao 9y ago
jpitz 9y ago
I'm not condoning the practice. I'm pointing out that it rarely works out to be truly lifetime.

quakenul 9y ago

It is your problem. Which you can now take to court and likely expect to get some form of compensation, since FastMail is in violation of your agreement. I do realize putting "lifetime" on anything brings heavy emotional weight. But in the end it's simply another contract which, even without any malintent, get broken all the time. If you are the damaged party you can use the legal system to seek damages, if you feel the inflicted damage warrants going through the trouble.

delhanty 9y ago
FastMail and you know it's not worth my time to take them to court for $15. Besides FastMail is in Australia, my father is in the UK and I am in Japan ... Also, would the court order FastMail to continue to offer service to my father, which is what I want. I very much doubt that. FastMail would just be allowed to make the offer of the $15 plus some half-price deal on another plan, which they have done already. On the other hand, companies do seem to rather dislike bad publicity. So when they try and back-out of past agreements and contacts that no longer suit them, it is far more effective to call them out publicly on forums like this one.
- quakenul 9y ago
  Fair enough :) I understand the trouble that goes along with any "small time" contract breach and if this dissuades companies from doing something like it in the future, I am all for it.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  I'd think the court would rule that the company should cover your costs incurred as a result of breaking the contract - i.e. they'd either be required to provide the plan for life or cover a plan elsewhere.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > FastMail and you know it's not worth my time to take them to court for $15. Now, I don't know the details of the contract, but generally, the value this is about is not $15. The value is the damage caused by them failing to fulfill their contracts, which would be the discounted value of the market price of all future payments needed to replace their failure to perform. There is no general legal option for one party to a contract to simply pull out and give you back your money. They owe you what they promised in the contract, and if they don't deliver, they are liable for the damage that that causes for you.
  - delhanty 9y ago
    Good theoretical point! If this was about serious money, that's how my lawyer would argue it. But for $15 I'm not going to try that in a small claims court in the UK say. I've been there once and the judge was one of the most condescending, pompous dimwits that I'd ever encountered.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > But for $15 I'm not going to [...] Just wondering: Where did those $15 come from?
      - stevenwliao 9y ago

jpitz 9y ago

I'm not condoning the practice. I'm pointing out that it rarely works out to be truly lifetime.