3 Mobile failed to pay my cashback, Topcashback will pay half, should I accept?

robbies_gal

i do find it strange how theyre letting them use their scheme if theyre not paying out

however i never buy anything based on cashback as ive heard too many stories on it not working so if u dont expect to get it its jsut a nice bonus when u do

WhitmoreReans

I've been waiting for four months for £80 from Topcashback for a Three mobile contract. Apparently it's Three who have declined it (without reason, had they given a valid reason I wouldn't feel so annoyed) so my beef is with them, not Topcashback. I would not have given them my business if it hadn't been for the £80 cash back, and they've changed the data allowance from 'unlimited' (I know that there was such a thing as a fair usage policy) to 500MB which is not what I signed up for. I would dearly love to cancel my contract with three, but for the reasons outlined above it seems unlikely that they would agree to let me walk away which is a shame as I loathe giving them my money.

Atelier1975

I too have been declined wrongly by 3 mobile: £80.

I've reflected on and off with a lot of care on this matter because it's upset me enormously. My law education is only a bit greater than that of a chartered accountant, however I have a particular interest in consumer contracts.

I think that the issues with wrongly declined cashback (in a nutshell, who to sue, and what for, and why) are identical to that in the original famous case of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Look it up - it's great.

The company, in the 1800s, put out an ad saying "if you buy this and it doesn't cure your flu, we'll give you £20". They defended being sued, by saying they didn't mean it. They lost the case. It is seen as a fundamental case in contract law development.

Topcashback are only a marketing channel - acting as an agent for 3 mobile, in my opinion.

There is no 'contract' at all with Topcashback for them to put terms to, because there is no 'consideration', i.e. payment given them by you. The contract is with 3 mobile. The cashback lure is the same as the £20 offer of Carbolic Smoke.

I believe the term which says "no cashback is guaranteed" is unfair as defined by the UTCCR and thus can be struck out / declared void - if it even has any material bearing given Topcashback aren't a contracting party.

The intentions of the parties seem to me to be more important than the words used in this case.

Topcashback need to be dealt with by the ASA -but I think small claims have the power to deal with 3 Mobile. Although get advice as this is just my personal thought!

Good luck all :-)

Lynsey

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I would sue the cashback site - it's them who are offering the cashback.
I also believe the T&C's are unfair, one reason would be that a cashback site could possibly just decline a cashback payment saying it's been refused.
The cashback site gets paid from the Affiliate Network (AN) once the AN has recieved the payment from the merchants, or it's agents.
I see it as going down the line - we sue the cashback site, they could if they want then sue the AN and so on.
ASA is the main bit for myself, what is advertised should be paid for legitimate transactions - it shouldn't just be a possibilty.

Lynsey

Exhortation

Atelier1975 wrote: »

I too have been declined wrongly by 3 mobile: £80.

I've reflected on and off with a lot of care on this matter because it's upset me enormously. My law education is only a bit greater than that of a chartered accountant, however I have a particular interest in consumer contracts.

I think that the issues with wrongly declined cashback (in a nutshell, who to sue, and what for, and why) are identical to that in the original famous case of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Look it up - it's great.

The company, in the 1800s, put out an ad saying "if you buy this and it doesn't cure your flu, we'll give you £20". They defended being sued, by saying they didn't mean it. They lost the case. It is seen as a fundamental case in contract law development.

Topcashback are only a marketing channel - acting as an agent for 3 mobile, in my opinion.

There is no 'contract' at all with Topcashback for them to put terms to, because there is no 'consideration', i.e. payment given them by you. The contract is with 3 mobile. The cashback lure is the same as the £20 offer of Carbolic Smoke.

I believe the term which says "no cashback is guaranteed" is unfair as defined by the UTCCR and thus can be struck out / declared void - if it even has any material bearing given Topcashback aren't a contracting party.

The intentions of the parties seem to me to be more important than the words used in this case.

Topcashback need to be dealt with by the ASA -but I think small claims have the power to deal with 3 Mobile. Although get advice as this is just my personal thought!

Good luck all :-)

It's more convoluted than this, though. Topcashback don't get the money from 3 Mobile, they get it from a fourth party - an intermediary between them and the retailer. I also fail to see the correlation between the case you mention (which involves a guarantee that the product will function as described) and a cashback offer, which is no more than an enticement to buy with no guarantees and clear caveats to that end.