Telecommunications companies routinely require fixed-term subscribers of their services to give notice of non-renewal within a stipulated period before expiry (Advance notice given to M1 customers on contract end date, Sept 3).

If this is not done, or done after the stipulated date, subscribers will be deemed to have continued with the services after expiry, often at fees much higher than those charged during the fixed-term contract.

This practice flies in the face of the basic principles of contract law.

A fixed-term contract is deemed to have expired at the end of the term, unless renewed. It is not deemed to have continued after expiry, unless not renewed.

While a deliberate act to renew the contract is required to give it life after expiry, inaction is sufficient to end it upon expiry.

It follows that neither party should have any legal obligation to notify the other of its intention not to renew, much less to do so within a period stipulated by that party before expiry.

No party should have the right to compel the other to continue to perform its obligations under the contract after expiry, merely because the latter has not given notice not to renew.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority should therefore ban telcos from inserting such obligations on the part of consumers into the fine prints of service contracts.

Such terms are against common sense and often catch and trap unsuspecting consumers by surprise.

Cheng Shoong Tat