Is this refusal to cancel justified?

Is this refusal to cancel justified?

"I am a subscriber of a telecommunications operator who recently sent me the following message: "Hello. Do something for the planet: ask now to receive your bills by e-mail, free of charge (...). From 1 September 2012, in accordance with market standards, you will be billed every month for sending paper summary invoices". Unhappy with this change, I sent a letter to my operator requesting immediate cancellation of my subscription free of charge, which they refused to do".

André, Collex

Telephone subscription contracts are considered to be innominate contracts as they do not belong to any of the categories of contracts listed in the Code of Obligations. The relationship between the parties to an innominate contract is governed by the general part of the Code of Obligations, which applies without restriction, as well as by certain articles of special contracts that apply by analogy.

In order to regulate its relationship with customers, the telephone operator may also incorporate general conditions into the specific provisions of the contract. These pre-formulated clauses only have effect if the operator and the customer have agreed that they will form an integral part of their contract.

In most telephone subscription contracts, the customer approves the general terms and conditions without negotiating them and sometimes even without reading them, but this does not make them any less valid. In fact, it is enough for the text of the pre-drafted clauses to be available, even on the internet, for them to be validly incorporated.

According to general principles of law, a unilateral modification of contractual clauses, including the general terms and conditions incorporated into the contract, cannot be imposed on the other contracting party without its agreement. The customer of a telephone operator is therefore under no obligation to respect a clause if he has not expressed his wish to be bound by it.

In addition, most of the general terms and conditions pre-formulated by telephony operators stipulate that even if a modification is possible at any time, the customer may in principle refuse the modified services in writing or, in the event of a significant modification to his detriment, terminate the contract in writing within a certain period.

In this case, the fact that the billing service was made chargeable when neither the clauses of your contract nor the initial standard clauses provided for this constitutes a unilateral change to the contract by your operator. You were therefore, prima facie, entitled to refuse this change by writing to your operator. Furthermore, if you consider the change to be significant, particularly if the cost of billing represents a substantial amount compared with your usual bills, you were probably justified in cancelling your subscription at short notice.