It's a possible way of terminating SOME services (I wouldn't try it on your cable or cell phone bill). But I think it depends what you mean by "acceptable." It's not very nice. If the best practice for a merchant is to suspend an account when someone doesn't pay, then best practice for a consumer is to cancel a service when you no longer intend to pay for it.

I dunno, it's not really "nice" or "mean". It's an amoral act. If a user automatically prepays for services and isn't under a more formal contract (as they would be with a cell phone provider, and possibly cable), opting not to pay is their prerogative. Just as opting not to provide services is the seller's prerogative.

Monthly services fees are a convenience for both the buyer and the seller, not just the seller.

Nearly all cable services and most cell phone contracts are post-paid, not pre-paid. How else would they tack on fees for elective usages without a debit system?

It's effectively a credit system. You owe them money at the end of the month for services rendered since the last bill.

The existence of post-paid services seems to have no direct bearing on whether pre-paid services, like Zipcar, should feel entitled to rapidly go ape on your credit rating when the funding source disappears.

It does absolutely have direct bearing on whether "opting not to provide services is the seller's prerogative" as the parent stated, when the services actually are under a formal contract and post-paid. The argument holds up for Zipcar but not any of his examples.

I think you're making the same point I was...

Sorry about that, you're right, I misread the negative leading into the parenthetical

I'm exceptionally skilled at being unclear.

"If the best practice for a merchant is to suspend an account when someone doesn't pay"

no it's not!!!

i prefer that my credit card stays active if i'm late. I prefer that my health care is active if my payment is late. I love that my cell phone is reachable if i miss my bill.

Stop making excuses. 99.9% of the time, i don't want the merchant to cancel services if i miss a payment.

Simply stopping payment is a bullshit way to indicate you want to stop paying for a service.

This is hacker news. Thing about building a system where you had to account for people breaking a contract every time they wanted to cancel service. That's an edge case and shouldn't be encouraged.

The question isn't whether or not it's an acceptable way of terminating an agreement, the question is how does a merchant act properly in handling such a situation.

Calling the creditors when a) the missed payment is for a pre-paid service; b) is a small amount; and c) the service hasn't been used by the customer... is completely inappropriate.

Even more inappropriate is when a merchant builds their entire business model based on a combination of infrequent auto-renewing payments, a complicated cancelation process, and crazy cancelation terms. Canceling at some gyms, for example, is more complicated and requires more effort and notice than leaving an apartment. That's sneaky (and by design).

Is it stupid to cancel your cards as a way of ending your contracts? Yes. Is it stupid to take draconian measures to get money from a customer who doesn't want and hasn't used your service? Yes.

you can make your own assumptions about acceptable ways of canceling a monthly service. you can also read the terms of service and abide by what you said ok to.

personally, it seems like a lot of people are trying to whine their way out of contracts.