I was thinking about the whole iPad/AT&T debacle with client data going walkabout and who was to blame. Technically the fault was on the side of AT&T (as I understand it) but since Apple essentially force iPad users into a contract with AT&T then Apple must surely take responsibility for actions carried out by their ‘sub contractor’.
I think it is comparable to a company delivering a package to you via FedEx (as an example) and then claiming innocence if the package goes missing. The company you give your money to should be accountable to you for the actions carried out by companies they employ that effect you, if that makes sense.
Anyway, is there a name for the type of contract that exists between iPad users and AT&T. Picture the following conversation, if you will.
Person1 - AT&T suck, I can never get a signal
Person2 - Then why did you sign up with them?
Person1 - I didn’t have a choice, it’s a ________ contract.
I don’t know the details of the arrangement you are referring to, but at a wild guess it sounds like the type of contract you are grouping for is a “tied contract”. In general you can buy a mobile phone service from a wide range of proprietors, but if you buy this appliance then you have to get the supporting phone service from that provider, i.e. the purchase of the appliance is tied to the formation of a service contract with a particular provider.
Yeah that’s the kind of deal. You have signed a contract with one company but due to this contract another company is providing you with a service, is there a legalese term for this type of arrangement? You haven’t select this second company and may not agree with their practices but you are forced into a contract with them that you may not have been aware of at the time of signing up with the first company.
Legally, there could be one of (at least) two things going on:
I contract with you to (say) build you a house. Then I subcontract with the bricklayer, the carpenter and so on to do various parts of the project.
In this situation, your only contractual relationship is with me, and if the finished house is not up to spec you sue me. I can involve the carpenter, the bricklayer, etc, and try to make them bear some or all of any liability to you, but in principle that is my issue, not yours.
The actual terms of my contract with you could vary this. It could, for example, provide that I can subcontract parts of the project requiring specialist expertise, and that in that instance my obligation is limited to exercising proper care in the selection and supervision of the specialist subcontractor. By limiting my own liability in this way, I pass on some of the risk of poor performance by the subcontractor to you. (You still don’t have a contractual relationship with him; you may be able to sue him, but not for breach of contract.)
That’s a subcontract. It doesn’t sound like that’s what you have here.
I contract with you to provide X good or service, and one of the terms of the contract is that you should contract directly with my mate Jim to provide Y good or service. For example, UDS Entirely Legitimate Bank enters into a lending contract to lend you money to buy a house, and one of the terms of that contract is that you will insure the house with UDS Entirely Reasonable Insurance Co. Inc. You will end up with two contracts, one with Bank and one with Insurer. If you want to change insurer, you’ll have to repay your loan first (or negotiate a variation in your loan contract to dispense with the term requiring you to keep the property insured with a particular insurer).
(Note: such a lender/insurer tie-in would be illegal in many countries, at least for home loans. But it illustrates the point.)
There’s no universally recognised term for this kind of arrangement, but I’ve often heard the term “tied contract” used.
