Fitness First: Difference between revisions
links |
Added section on contribution to interpretation of contract law |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
It now has over 550 clubs worldwide with more than 1.5 million First Fitness members. |
It now has over 550 clubs worldwide with more than 1.5 million First Fitness members. |
||
==Legal Action== |
|||
In August 2008, Fitness First won an appeal in the Australian NSW Supreme Court to ensure that gym contracts with clients were still legally valid even if the court finds that the client did not understand what they had signed.<ref>http://news.smh.com.au/national/gym-wins-court-case-against-sick-member-20080807-3rnf.html</ref>. |
|||
This appeal overturned the decision of the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal which had found that a contract required a '''meeting of the minds, in that they each fully know and understand the terms and conditions of the agreement'''.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fitness-first-sick-win/2008/08/07/1217702208957.html</ref>. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had erred in a matter of law. |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
Revision as of 14:25, 7 August 2008
 |
Fitness First is the one of the largest health and fitness provider in the world, second in number of clubs only to Gold's Gym and third in memberships only to 24 hour fitness and Gold's Gym, with clubs in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.
In 2005 the company was acquired by BC Partners, a European private equity group.
In Australia, Fitness First took over a number of Living Well locations owned by the Hilton Group. Also they bought the 11-gym Healthland chain from an administrator, and now own over 80 gyms across Australia.
In late 2006, Fitness First reached the milestone of 500 clubs world-wide, marked by the opening of the fourth club in Sydney, Australia.
It now has over 550 clubs worldwide with more than 1.5 million First Fitness members.
Legal Action
In August 2008, Fitness First won an appeal in the Australian NSW Supreme Court to ensure that gym contracts with clients were still legally valid even if the court finds that the client did not understand what they had signed.[1].
This appeal overturned the decision of the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal which had found that a contract required a meeting of the minds, in that they each fully know and understand the terms and conditions of the agreement.[2]. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had erred in a matter of law.