No horses? Sometimes, waiting in a call centre queue, listening to horrid music, punctuated occasionally by announcements like "all our service staff are currently busy. Please wait . . . " is about as productive as flogging a dead horse.

Schweizerische Obligationenrecht (OR)/Droit des obligations (CO)/Diritto delle obbligazioni (CO)/Dretg d’obligaziuns

I would have thought after 11 years in a country that is known.

A contract can be terminated any way you like. You can just walk up and tell the other.
The problem is the proof that it's been received. Easiest way to get that proof is a registered letter. No manner of termination can be refused. But disputed. Easiest way to avoid this dispute is a registered letter.

UPC is basically doing it's customers a favour by offering easy/quick ways. Claiming written terminations won't be accepted is a nice try to avoid paperwork. And it obviously works like a treat.

I let you all go in circles now for the week-end.

__________________
It's all a matter or perspective.
So move your butt and look at it from the other side

It is actually not quite as simple:
Art. 16 OR allows the Parties to contractually agree on form requirements for contracts. E.g. if the Parties have agreed on the "written form" this actually means a termination notice with a handwritten signature.

It becomes murkier if you add on things to the effect that the "form" includes being sent by "Registered Letter". One can engage in discussions whether this is a "requirement as to validity" (Gültigkeitsvorschrift) oder merely a "requirement as to evidence" (Beweisvorschrift). Ultimately, it is a question what the Parties intended.

As it stands Parties are generally free to agree on which forms they want to apply. The Unfair Competition Act, however, states that is "unfair to use general terms and conditions that provide for a significant and unjustified imbalance between contractual rights and contractual obligations to the detriment of consumers in a manner that violates the principal of good faith." And that of course is a matter of opinion.

There is one case in which the Ombudsman looked at the issue (note he is not a judge), which goes through the various arguments:
https://cas.ombudscom.ch/kuendigung-...Post%20erfolgt.

I would personally terminate by chat and make and save the photograph of the chat...

__________________
Liability for any statements hereinabove excluded! - Need a Swiss lawyer PM me.

IMHO contract cancellation is a unilateral declaration of will, doing so must be possible without involving the other party (assuming the other contractual conditions to cancel are met). Having to involve the other party removes the unilaterality (word?). That's what registered mail is for, and the reason why the receipt alone is generally considered sufficient proof.

The need to use the contract partner's infrastructure can impede that ability, and proof in the narrow sense may be impossible (a screenshot for instance can be forged). That doesn't rule out other means of communication, of course it can be much easier to cancel by phone - it's just not the point.

It's the same principle as when somenone deregisters from the commune, also a unilateral declaration of will. Many a commune will try to prevent that until all taxes and other payments due have been paid for, but the Federal Court has made it crystal clear that this id unlawful, and possibly illegal. It's enough to inform the commune that you deregister, they simply have to accept your declaration.

I recently cancelled my postfinance conto by using the chatbot and it was a hassle-free operation.

If they implement similarly, I don't understand the uproar. Of course registered letter should probably still be possible, but that's an expensive way that also takes time (I have to write the letter, print it at work, buy a webstamp print it and cut it up, find a couvert and glue, assemble everything and finally drop it at a mailbox.

So to be honest, it's not something I'd normally use, but it should be there for when the company is not cooperating (e.g. the chat doesn't have a chatbot and there is a queue or a technical issue, or the company is in chaos and there is no way to contact it) in order to give a safe way out for consumers out of a contract with a failing dumpster fire.

>That's what registered mail is for, and the reason why the receipt alone is generally considered sufficient proof.

if they do not show up at the office, it doesn't work either, right? So I think some involvement of the other party still seems to be there.

Always imagined that they implement this not to make your life easier but to try and convince you to stay with them…..