A Gym’s Renewal Email: Frozen Fees, Open Branches
CityFit, a twelve-branch gym chain, emails members about a revised membership policy. The email says: “Your fees are frozen at today’s level for every member who renews before 31 August.” A later paragraph promises “access to all 12 branches, subject to availability”. The annual membership currently costs ₹9,000. The renewal form adds a compulsory ₹500 annual “maintenance charge”, which the email never mentions; the accounts team insists this is not a fee because it covers equipment servicing. Separately, the class-booking clause reads: “Sessions cancelled less than 12 hours before the start time will be charged at 50%.” Three branches are closed for renovation until November, and members have started posting screenshots of the email alongside photographs of the shuttered doors. The customer service head wants a reply that is accurate, keeps renewals coming, and does not promise anything the chain cannot deliver. She also wants the renewal form rewritten so that a reasonable member cannot later claim the charge was hidden.
1. Identify the two phrases doing most of the work in creating the gap between the email’s promise and members’ experience, and explain how each operates.
Read the worked answer
The gap is manufactured by two phrases, both of which survive a literal reading while failing a reasonable one.
- “subject to availability” is an undefined escape hatch. It names no measure of availability, no notice period, no alternative branch and no remedy. It converts the headline “all 12 branches” into a discretionary promise, so a member standing outside a shuttered branch has nothing to point to. The three closures make this concrete rather than theoretical.
- “maintenance charge” is a labelling move. A compulsory annual payment for the same membership is, in substance, part of the price; renaming it does not change what the member pays. Because the email never mentions it, the member discovers it at the renewal form.
The drafting technique in both cases is the same: a strong headline in the email, a flexible qualifier in the fine print. That is why the complaint is about fairness and not about arithmetic.
2. Is the claim that fees are “frozen” accurate? Argue the chain’s position and the member’s, then give a verdict.
Read the worked answer
The chain’s case: the membership fee itself is unchanged at ₹9,000; the ₹500 is a separate, itemised charge for equipment servicing, so no fee has been raised. This is defensible only on a narrow definition that no member shares.
The member’s case: what a member pays to keep training is the relevant number, and that number moves.
- Previous year: ₹9,000
- Renewal year: ₹9,000 + ₹500 = ₹9,500
- Increase: ₹500, or 5.6%
Verdict: the claim is misleading. “Frozen” is an absolute word, and a 5.6% rise in the amount payable contradicts it. The chain can defend the ₹500 on its merits - servicing costs money, and members benefit - but it cannot defend the word “frozen”. A statement that is true only under a private definition of “fee” will lose in front of members, regulators and anyone reading the screenshots.
3. Rewrite the renewal form’s cost and branch-access wording in two sentences that a reasonable member cannot misread.
Read the worked answer
Suggested wording: “Your 2025–26 membership is ₹9,000, plus a compulsory annual maintenance charge of ₹500, giving a total of ₹9,500 - ₹500 more than you paid last year. Your membership covers all branches that are open; three branches are closed for renovation until November 2025, and we will email you the week each one reopens.”
Why this works, sentence by sentence. The first sentence names the total, not just the components, so the increase cannot be discovered late; it also states the increase in rupees rather than leaving the member to subtract. The second replaces “subject to availability” with a fact the member can check and a date they can hold the chain to. Together they remove both ambiguities without conceding anything the chain cannot deliver.
The test to apply before sending: could a member read this and later claim surprise? If yes, the draft is not finished. Note also what is not done - the ₹500 is not hidden as “admin”, and the closures are not buried in a footnote.