Is the B4RN Wayleave Agreement negligently or fraudulantly deceiptful?

[erichafabee]

Ref: [https://b4rn.org.uk/wp-content/uploa...2.3-11.19.pdf] B4RN Wayleave Agreement

The B4RN Wayleave Agreement includes the following clauses:

• I/We also agree that if we wish to cancel this agreement we will give B4RN at least twelve months’ notice to remove their network components from our land. This is necessary to give B4RN time to install new network runs and avoid disrupting service to other members of the community
• Should the network ever transfer to a conventional profit-making company the waiver of payments for wayleaves would cease and the landowner will be free to negotiate with the new owner.

As a lay man I interpreted these clauses as meaning that:

• I have the right to get their equipment removed from my land within 12 months, for any reason whatever, simply by giving notice to this effect.
• If a non-profit organisation took over if would able to negotiate payments freely with them - including, most importantly given the reason for giving the land, I would be free to demand an extremely high rent to discourage this from ever occuring in the first place.

However. It seems that TelCo Installations of this nature enjoy special rights under the Electronic Communications Act that very severely limit a land owners rights in this situation. To the extent that the equipment can in fact only be removed under certain limited situations and even then a huge burden can fall on the Landowner to acheive this and also to the extent that there is not infact "freedom to negotiate payments" at all because the Act severley limits the value basis that LandLords can claim in such negotiations.

The effect of the Act is that the two most signifigant clauses in the Wayleave that might have persuaded me into to signing it appear grossly and fundamentally misleading.

B4RN must be well aware of the impact of this the Electronic Communications Act, as they sought and were granted relevant Code powers by Ofcom.

This seems to me to be extremely deceiptful. At least negligent if not fraudulant deceipt. What do you think?

[ostell]

Duplicate THread

[erichafabee]

ostell Which thread are you referring to as duplicate?

This thread asks specifically about deceipt. My other thread asks about lack of consideration.

[https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...t-enforceable]

[ostell]

You have about 4 threads about the same subject.

[erichafabee]

ostell

Please post references/links to the "about 4 duplicates" that you have identified so that I can ask the moderator to remove them.

I have very carefully and very deliberately split some very different legal aspects raised by the B4RN wayleave contract into three different threads and I don't wan't any re-posted duplicates to be confused with these three different threads.

[ostell]

THe threads are basically about the same subject matter and it helps if a thread has the WHOLE story.

[erichafabee]

EXC : Could you please look into ostell' s claims that I have duplicate threads? Ostell hasnt provided any evidence yet but I slightly suspect they may just have seen B4RN in the title of more than one thread and assumed they were about the same aspect of law - which they very definitely are not. If you agree, are you able to remove all the dialogue about duplicates from this thread? It rather obscures the actual subject!

[erichafabee]

ostell

THe threads are basically about the same subject matter and it helps if a thread has the WHOLE story.

Ah. I can understand that. I was carefully trying to pick out the different legal issues I perceive with this B4RN wayleave into separate threads for a cleaner discussions of each point of law. But I understand that "the whole picture" would help in some or even all points Not sure best way forward with these threads. The most serious is clearly the blackmail but for reasons I don't want to disclose the most pressing is the question of whether it is even a valid contract due to lack of consideration - which I thought would be realtively straight forward to get an anser on in its own rights.

[erichafabee]

ostell Please stop vanadlising my threads! It is not a duplicate. It is focused on the criteria for negligent or fraudulent deceit, my other two threads are not.

If you have something say on this specific subject please do so.

EXC My request to clean out the rambling discussion of duplicates with ostell stands. It seems other people have been able to comment usefuly on the more focused subjects.