£120 Cashback with Vodafone £15 Sim-Only **Now with problems**

ianian99

Lynsey wrote: »

The retailers are offering nothing, it's the cashback site who offer the cashback, and some charge a fee for this service. Any action needs to be against them, not the retailer.
They do have T&C's, but are they actually legal??
Until tested, we will never know.

Lynsey

Thats why I said go to the affiliate manager. Theres more than one middle man.

retailer - affiliate company - cashback site - you.

Lynsey

ianian99 wrote: »

Thats why I said go to the affiliate manager. Theres more than one middle man.

retailer - affiliate company - cashback site - you.

I agree that's the way it works, but we as a cashback customer have nothing to do with an affiliate company, our "contract" is with the cashback site. Though it would do no harm trying to find out if the payment has been forwarded.

Lynsey

ianian99

Lynsey wrote: »

I agree that's the way it works, but we as a cashback customer have nothing to do with an affiliate company, our "contract" is with the cashback site. Though it would do no harm trying to find out if the payment has been forwarded.

Lynsey

Plus the affiliate manager can usually tll you straight away if its been paid or not. The cashback sites dont like you doing this though. I wonder why?

MORPH3US

@ ianian99,

How would I find out who the affiliate manager is and their contact details?

ianian99

MORPH3US wrote: »

@ ianian99,

How would I find out who the affiliate manager is and their contact details?

give me 5 mins

ianian99

MORPH3US wrote: »

@ ianian99,

How would I find out who the affiliate manager is and their contact details?

check your pm;)

Thanatos

Lynsey wrote: »

They do have T&C's, but are they actually legal??
Until tested, we will never know.

Lynsey

Quote from ContractsandAgreements.co.uk (Legal advisors specialising in Contract Law)
There are two basic rules to the formation of a legal contract; offer and acceptance. One party makes an offer or agreement to provide a service and the other party accepts the offer. By setting out the terms and conditions of offer and acceptance a legally binding contract has been made. If the contract is broken, or breached, then the law can used to enforce the contract.

If you sign (or click accept on the net) a formal agreement saying you accept a company can not be held responsible, then you enter a legally binding contract agreeing that you accept they have no responsibility.


I'm not saying that its morally correct, but contract law (including internet contract law) has been tried and tested through the courts a bazillion times. The only way it can be challenged is by proving that by action of the contract it would break the laws of the country the contract was signed in.

It's for the same reason that pre-nups are legally recognised in some countries but not in others.



However, personally I agree with everyone else that something should be able to be done about it, and think the affiliate manger might be a good route, but am 100% certain trying the cashback companies through the courts is a waste of time. They simply are not stupid enough that they wold leave themselves open to be held responsible for claims that never got paid. If they were, there would probably be the biggest class action suit against them this country has ever seen!

Lynsey

I'm not saying I'm right, far from it, but what is to stop the cashback sites from "screwing you". They offer a "carrot", but if they decide they don't want to pay, nothing can be done?? They can say they were not paid by an affiliate and that's it??
I've said lots of times, this needs testing on the advertising side of things.
I would love this to be tested and if I was waiting for a decent tracked transaction, say a large insurance cashback I may "chance my arm" via MCOL.
We have a large community here and it would not take much to combine funds for this to be tested, it is actually quite cheap to do and would incur large costs on defending, plus time etc. If they did lose it would open up a "can of worms", probably change the way these sites advertise and tidy things up. Until then, we "obey by their rules".

Lynsey

Thanatos

Lynsey wrote: »

I'm not saying I'm right, far from it, but what is to stop the cashback sites from "screwing you". They offer a "carrot", but if they decide they don't want to pay, nothing can be done?? They can say they were not paid by an affiliate and that's it??
I've said lots of times, this needs testing on the advertising side of things.
I would love this to be tested and if I was waiting for a decent tracked transaction, say a large insurance cashback I may "chance my arm" via MCOL.
We have a large community here and it would not take much to combine funds for this to be tested, it is actually quite cheap to do and would incur large costs on defending, plus time etc. If they did lose it would open up a "can of worms", probably change the way these sites advertise and tidy things up. Until then, we "obey by their rules".

Lynsey

I guess as it stands now, there is nothing to stop them screwing with you except relying on their reputation - its astonishing how many people still dont know about them (and still dont use them even when they do know!)

The other side of the coin may need looking at here too, firstly what terms to the cash back sites have with whoever they are getting the money from (the retailer direct or the affiliate) - do they have any legal rights to force whoever to pay them. Then move on to the affiliate, what are their legal terms and conditions. Unless all of these people have the same terms, (e.g ultimately the retailer must pay) it could cause any number of people to go out of business...

For example, you win a legal challenge and top cash back now has to pay be no matter what money they get.... whats to stop the affiliate withholding the cash when they know TCB has no legal comeback? same with the next step up the ladder too.

I would be amazed if TCB hadnt signed an agreement with the affiliates saying if the retailer dont pay the affiliate then TCB cant sue the affiliate and this is the exact same reason why they put the same terms in the contracts with us. Its to prevent any single company in the chain from retailer to customer being held fully responsible for non-payment by the retailer. Any legal challenge would need reasearching right the way to the top or risk potentially killing an industry off.

Wouldn't life be easier if the retialers just discounted their prices and they all stopped paying each other money that ultimately we end up subsidising through the costs of the goods?:p Essentially, we can teach them all a lesson by not paying the retailer in the first place!:rotfl:

Ok, rambling now, its late and the bottle is almost empty

Lynsey

I agree with a lot of what you say Thanatos, thanks for your reply.
I simply see it (rightly or wrongly) that a site offers us a "carrot" for making a purchase etc. from their site. As long as it track oks and it's a genuine transaction (there are ways to cheat), it should be paid, that's what is advertised. Our "contract" is with the cashback site and it's the cashback site who will owe us the money, nobody else. If say the cashback site doesn't receive the payment from the affiliate, or the affiliate doesn't receive payment from the merchant, then that's their issue and they need to sort it at their end, but what they offer/advertise us should be honoured when tracked. I'm looking at this purely on the advertising aspect and that's the area I would like clarified, can they just offer the "carrots" and not have to pay??
It would be simpler and cheaper if we just dealt with the merchant and we entered a discount code and got the money off straight away, but that's not the way it works, they do their marketing via affiliate networks (middlemen), the ones on cashback sites anyway.
We do agree the T&C's when joining up with these sites, I agree fully, but are they fair?? Until tested we shall not really know, and I think they could be tested this year, who knows??
These are my thoughts and I know very little bout the legal side of it, but hate seeing others "screwed".

Ok, rambling now, its late and the bottle is almost empty

Another day, another bottle.;)

Lynsey