Many Orange customers were left shocked over the last few days when they received the following sms:

'Hi from Orange. We're increasing the price of your monthly plan from 8th January 2012. For more information please visit orange.co.uk/planupdate.'

I logged onto the aforementioned website and discovered that I am utterly powerless to terminate my contract despite the price change and despite price being a fundamental term of the contract.

This yet again proves my point that it is easier to get a divorce than to terminate your mobile phone contract. Orange can cheat on you as much as it likes and get full settlement of it's contract if you choose to divorce them.

The relevant excerpt from Orange's standard terms and conditions is reproduced below:

"4.3 You may also terminate your Contract if we vary its terms, resulting in an excessive increase in the Charges or changes that alter your rights under this Contract to your detriment. In such cases you would need to give us at least 14 days written notice prior to your Billing Date (and within one month of us telling you about the changes). However this option does not apply if:

4.3.1 we have increased the Charges by an amount equal to or less than the percentage increase in the All Items Index of Retail Prices published by the Central Statistical Office in the Monthly Digest of Statistics in any 12 month period..."

Does the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 apply here? Arguably the reasonableness test is satisfied because Orange has limited its right to vary the charges to reflect fluctuations in inflation. On the other hand, however, is it reasonable to push the burden of inflation onto the consumer? We are all suffering because of inflation.

99% of customers will believe that they are signing a contract to be bound for 24 months and paying £30 each month. Indeed, this is exactly how Orange markets the mobile phone contracts to consumers. It is very sneaky and unfair to hide search terms and conditions from the marketing material.

There is an obvious unequal bargaining power between a large corporation like Orange and an individual consumer. No reasonable consumer sits and reads the terms and conditions of their mobile phone contract from start to finish and, if they do, most laymen would never understand the implications of it.

In short, Orange has managed to change the contracts of their existing customers and there is nothing we can do about it. Orange knows that no one individual customer is going to have the time or money to challenge them through litigation or otherwise.

This leads me to my next point; was it a commercially sound decision? It is my belief that such cut-throat and back-stabbing strategies should be reserved for the business-to-business context - it should NOT be allowed in the business-to-consumer environment: pick on someone your own size is the phrase that springs to mind.

Indeed, businesses rely on their consumers to buy their products or services, and blotchy business strategies should be reflected in the profits a business generates in any one acccounting period. Orange has abused its position in this case because customers bound to them by 24 month contracts are not free to leave and so this strategy will not affect their profits in the short term.

So in the short-term this may generate some nifty funds for Orange but what about the long term? As soon as long-term loyal customers are free of their chains of the orange mobile phone contract it will be interesting to see how many customers put the handcuffs back on.