[viknesh]

I once had a paper/digital subscription, and at some point I had cancelled the card linked to it. Unbeknownst to me (my parents were receiving the subscription), they had kept sending the paper despite the card being cancelled. When NYT eventually realized the card had been cancelled, they claimed that I owed them for the ~year or so that I had been receiving the paper after the card was cancelled, and attempted to send this to collections.

Completely outrageous business practices if you ask me.

[manigandham]

That's not outrageous at all. Your failure to pay doesn't invalidate your contract that you will pay for their services.

It's definitely frustrating to cancel, and this is a good ruling that will help make it easier, but it's still your responsibility to do so.

[matheusmoreira]

How could it not invalidate the contract? Services are provided after payment is made. If no payment is made, no service is provided.

[manigandham]

Those are not universal terms, and are actually defined in the contract which you seem to have not read. Grace periods, minimum commitments, subscription lengths, and/or post-paid terms are all common.

Ironically there are far more complaints about cloud providers shutting down entire business operations because of a late payment here on HN. Perhaps you should consider this more thoroughly instead of escalating a single unfortunate anecdote into a strawman argument against how business billing works.

[soco]

Have you ever read your contracts? Maybe it would be time to do so now, before you run into troubles with collectors.

[matheusmoreira]

Of course. I just opened up a contract I signed with a legal firm. It says lack of payment ends the contract.

Why can't everything be simple and easy? Maybe somebody needs to pass a law to make it so.

[soco]

I'm not sure why is this outrageous. You had a contract with NYT so they deliver you the newspaper for a payment, contract which you didn't even try to cancel. This is how contracts work.