Forward Cellular Have Gone Bust

andy88_2

The commission receivable by the dealer appears to depend on the customer staying on the same tariff for 6 months or more. How can FC be deemed to have breached the contract between Vodafone and the customer?

FC paid out the commission earlier than other dealers, but stated that it would be subject to clawback if the contract was prematurely rolled to a lower tariff. Imagine you were a dealer offering these terms. How easy would it be for you to pursue 4-6 months worth of these customers to get some money back? Do you think that your unwarranted trust in your customers might have damaged the business?

I don't know that this is what damaged the company, but it doesn't seem to be a huge leap of imagination. We have read here and elsewhere of people that intended to behave in this early downgrade manner, and clearly stated that they could make a profit by doing so, from well before the company was known to have problems. Well I must apologise to the people who are now losing out on their cashbacks for commenting on the situation when it does not affect me, but equally I must risk offending them further by pointing out that it was possible to think of this as a potential problem.

In the clamour to find the best possible deals, we all to need to temper our enthusiasm. If the deal is unbelievably better than the competition, then perhaps it is taking more risk.

Smartasss, if you read all the answers above you will see opinions that there are more than one contract involved. FC's demise does not invalidate the Vodafone contract. Why would Vodafone intend or be obliged to pay the Receiver ~£400 commission on a contract now worth only £180? Is this a loopy question? Where do people think the money comes from that enables them to get the contract for next to free? The commission in a downrated contract is bound to fall and what is more the T&C clearly implied this.

It may be that there will still be some commission; if the Receivers pay out 50% as anticipated, then alric may well receive say £60 - 80, but is it fair to still expect £180 at the expense of other creditors? I'd say unlikely.

Smartasss

The contract in question is the one between alric and forward cellular.

Forward breached that contract by not complying with the terms of the refund. Their breach in fact voided the contract. So there is no longer that contract in existence.

Alric has a separate contract with voda which they (voda) have altered as a goodwill gesture. Alric is entitled to accept that.

The situation regarding whether or not Voda will pay commission to Forward is not alric's concern.

andy88_2

Smartasss wrote:

The situation regarding whether or not Voda will pay commission to Forward is not alric's concern.

That's your opinion. This is what he/she said about it -

hopefully it won't upset my position with the liquidation too much

I'm only pointing out that Vodafone will not pay such a high commission to the Receiver, and it would therefore be unrealistic to expect a pro rata return on the same original figure. If you seriously intend to suggest that FC was or is obliged to pay £300 cashback from £150 commission, or that the Receiver has inherited this responsibility, then you still do not understand why the company is insolvent.

edit - If you were running a business where your income could be retrospectively be damaged 6 months later by the behaviour of a small minority of your customers, wouldn't you think you'd got it slightly wrong? On the other hand, would you become a customer of such a company when you had read some of these anti-social types boasting of this intention?

Smartasss

andy88 wrote:

If you seriously intend to suggest that FC was or is obliged to pay £300 cashback from £150 commission, or that the Receiver has inherited this responsibility, then you still do not understand why the company is insolvent.

My posts on the topic made no such suggestions - if you read them again you will see that all I said on that issue was that alric remains a creditor.


If voda renege on their contract with forward, then again that is not alric's concern - he has accepted voda's offer to alter the t's + c's of the contract that exists between him and voda, and why shouldn't he have done?

andy88_2

I'm not saying he shouldn't have made this new arrangement with Vodafone. I'm saying that he can't expect cashback pro rata to the original sum. It is not a question of

If voda renege on their contract with forward, then again that is not alric's concern

- it is not reneging on the Voda-FC contract for Vodafone to pay reduced commission on a reduced contract. If FC was still trading, alric would have received the cashback, but soon be due for a clawback of some of it, according to those T&C. Another customer might have altered their banking details to prevent the clawback.

I wouldn't run a business paying cashback after one month, where the receivable commission could be reduced below that amount by the customer's later action. Equally, I wouldn't become a customer of such a business when I had read the other customer's intentions. I don't know if this is what laid FC low, but it is certainly one of the possibilities.

Smartasss

andy88 wrote:

I'm saying that he can't expect cashback pro rata to the original sum.

No-ones arguing with you about that!

I have been trying to explain the situation regarding the two contracts.

1) The contract between alric and forward which no longer exists following forward's reneging on their side (so the clawback Ts + Cs no longer exist, as the contract no longer exists)

2) The one between voda & alric which voda have offered to amend and alric has accepted.

Nothing more.

In view of that, why keep arguing?

If you really want to discuss Forward's modus operandi, then fine, but I haven't been involved in that discussion.

andy88_2

Smartasss wrote:

Forward breached that contract by not complying with the terms of the refund. Their breach in fact voided the contract. So there is no longer that contract in existence.

The contract still exists and is vested in the actions of the receiver, and is the basis for defining the customer as a creditor, and hence due a part of the refund.

Smartasss

No, the contract was breached by Forward, and is therefore void.

andy88_2

Risking a journey into tortuous semantics, I am saying the contract is not void, but in default. The customer's rights under the contract still exist, as I already hinted.

alric

this is confusing
I would assume that no consideration was forthcoming from FC, so the contract was void.
I don't think Vodafone would allow me to downgrade if they were going to clawback.
Given the situation, would it not be foolish to continue paying £30 month, as the deal would've been almost free, and I was offered the chance to halve my outgoings?
FC may still have a responsibility to pay me what they owe me, but is it not my responsibility to limit the damage?