New Petrol Discount Card

rdwarr

BenefitMaster wrote:

No, sorry. They contracted to provide me with a card allowing me to buy fuel from specific locations at a discount. They charged me a set amount for that facility. I accepted ther contract terms, and paid.

They now say that, despite having charged my card, they can't supply the facility they offered, and are offering a substantially less beneficial facility or a refund...

I am entitled to specific performance, If they cannot comply, I am entitled to both my money back, and compensation for the extra costs I will incur, the loss of bargain.

Yes, but you won't have incurred any extra costs. You can't just make laws up as you go along and expect to use them to sue people

bs7

rdwarr wrote:

You can't just make laws up as you go along and expect to use them to sue people

Do you have any knowledge of the laws of contract whatsoever?

There is a contract and damages are not necessarily limited to the original cost/price of the contract.

So it is perfectly plausible that someone could sue for the loss of chance, reliance on the contract, etc, etc, and claim full damages for the loss of the service they were contracting for.

(i'm not saying it'd be easy (nor successful) - but theoretically speaking it is totally possible - and not in any way 'making laws up')

BenefitMaster

I'm not saying it would be easy btw, but it is arguable...

gromituk

And what about my point that you could only claim £75 anyway?

BenefitMaster

gromituk wrote:

And what about my point that you could only claim £75 anyway?

Based on my yearly spend of £2500, that's the equivalent of saving 3p in the pound, and in terms of actual fuel, will get me to Scotland and back...

However, it could be argued that I would have been a happy customer, and stuck with them for some considerable time...

rdwarr

bs7 wrote:

Do you have any knowledge of the laws of contract whatsoever?

No, not really. I normally rely on common sense and hope for the best.

Experience has shown that anything starting "However, it could be argued that ..." is unlikely to stand up in court.

BenefitMaster

I dunno which courts you stand up in...

The County Court is all about balance of probabilities - the balance of probabilities is that I would have been a good, regular customer, and stayed with the schemen for 4-6 years...

MSE_Martin

Please see my updated original post

martin

Art_2

BenefitMaster wrote:

I dunno which courts you stand up in...

The County Court is all about balance of probabilities - the balance of probabilities is that I would have been a good, regular customer, and stayed with the schemen for 4-6 years...

Keep us informed of how you get on with suing Marmalade.
We'd all be interested to see if you are right.

In your signiture you mention advice on Dss claims etc. Where have you got your experience from, as an employee or a claimant?

Regards,
Art.

BenefitMaster

Art wrote:

Keep us informed of how you get on with suing Marmalade.
We'd all be interested to see if you are right.

I didn't say I WOULD sue them, I said potentially I COULD sue them. There is a difference.

In your signiture you mention advice on Dss claims etc. Where have you got your experience from, as an employee or a claimant?

:eek:

If you'd bothered to actually read the signAture, you'd have seen the answer.

But then you couldnt have taken your cheap shot if you'd done that... :T