"valid until" legal question

pinkshoes

Well my Cod Liver Oil tablets are best before June 09 - does that mean I now have to eat them all in May?????

On the basis that their t&cs are ambiguous, then it should go in your favour.

Could you not take her this weekend??

yorksrabbit

pinkshoes wrote: »

Well my Cod Liver Oil tablets are best before June 09 - does that mean I now have to eat them all in May?????

On the basis that their t&cs are ambiguous, then it should go in your favour.

Could you not take her this weekend??

I suppose one way to find out would be to leave 'em until the last day of June and if there are any adverse side effects, then sue the manufacturer and see what happens.

thsths

yorksrabbit wrote: »

Unless a day of the month is given, then something that's "best before" a month is "best before" the start of that month, not the end.

I highly doubt that. Check your credit card: if it says 06/09 - 05/12, then it is valid from the beginning of June 2009 until the *end* of May 2012. This is the way that validity periods are commonly specified.

English common law has a different approach, so in a contractual sense a different interpretation is possible, especially because the word "until" is used (although it should always be specified exactly - 1st of June 2009, 00:01, or so).

You're right about the OP's treatment but as others have said, a savvy business in a case like this will always shrug its shoulders over an error of interpretation because losing a customer's patronage and a customer's recommendations is longterm more costly than appearing to be generous of heart.

Exactly.

Even more so, since he could try to claim that they were fraudulent in promising a validity period of 6 months in January, which in my book should extend into July anyway... that would be at least false advertising, which can have some nasty fines attached.

trevormax

yorksrabbit wrote: »

Unless a day of the month is given, then something that's "best before" a month is "best before" the start of that month, not the end.

If an airport check-in desk is open until 10am, arriving at 10.59am means you'll likely not be allowed on the flight, and arguing that the tenth hour was still extant, though in its final minute, won't make a scrap of difference. You're 59 minutes too late.

(Substitute the above for a hypothetical case of being told that the check-in is open until June. Arriving on the 30th day of that month means it's still June. But it also means you're 30 days too late.)

I would disagree with you on this example. 10am is an exact time just as 10:59 is an exact time. Turning up at a checkin at 10:59 is not the same as turning up at 10:00. Using that example, if someone had to pay £59 for something you are saying they can just pay £50 as its inside the £50-59 area.

However, if something says valid until June, there are 30 days in June, each of them inside the month of June so each one acceptable as being "June".

I would say the op has until the end of June to use the voucher. For example, on car tax discs, the date is shown as 30/06/09 meaning you have until the end of that day to buy a new tax disc or declare sorn.

jmp909

yorksrabbit wrote: »

As the courts demonstrated long ago the duration of a conditional event is irrelevant.

If an airport check-in desk is open until 10am, arriving at 10.59am means you'll likely not be allowed on the flight, and arguing that the tenth hour was still extant, though in its final minute, won't make a scrap of difference. You're 59 minutes too late

your analogy doesn't work. the correct analogy is what happens if you arrive at checkout desk at 10am? will you be allowed on or not? my argument would be that check-in is open until 10am, i checked in at 10am , therefore I shouldn't be prevented from boarding.

Mankysteve

what a random post.

Tozer

jmp909 wrote: »

your analogy doesn't work. the correct analogy is what happens if you arrive at checkout desk at 10am? will you be allowed on or not? my argument would be that check-in is open until 10am, i checked in at 10am , therefore I shouldn't be prevented from boarding.

You registered to respond to a post made over 6 months earlier....?