Honouring gift vouchers whe a company is taken over...help!

aheaton46

As I understand it, DVardysShadow is correct. If the original company has been taken over, lock stock and barrel, then the purchasing company takes on everything from the purchased company. Thus, when L'Oreal bough Body Shop a year or so back, Body Shop vouchers remained valid.

The exception is if the company has not been bought out completely. Eg, the company went into administration and someone bought out the name, or the stock and shops. In this case, such as the trading name Woolworths being bought after the stores collapse, vouchers would not be valid.

I also don't know if there's anything a store can do to refuse to honour vouchers after a certain period of time. I would assume there's some form of time limit, even if it's not explicitly stated on the vouchers - perhaps in the t&cs when they were bought.

All you can do is write to their head office and explain the situation, asking them to replace your vouchers with some more recent ones for their new name. If they refuse, they are likely to give a reason.

bookworm1363

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You are the one saying that there are different rules for vouchers. I'm going on a standard understanding of debt. Now it is easier for you to quote some different rules for vouchers [the basis of your claim] than for me to prove that there are no different rules in existence.

As I understand it, it is all common law. A voucher constitutes a token for a company to provide goods to a value at a later date - evidence of a contract.

Now, it is plain enough that if a company is taken over, all its contracts stand. Why should contracts evidenced by vouchers be the least bit different? If however the company has not been taken over, but its assets have been bought, then the contract remains with whoever still owns the company. All explained in my first post.

Thanks for reminding me of this thread on the other one, lol.

There you go again, a "you against me", "crossing swords", bla bla bla...

Can't you just do something to assist the OP? You say that the OP DOES have the right to have his/her vouchers honoured, please give him/her the necessary legislation! I assure you, I'd be delighted if I were wrong because it would mean a consumer wins over a company, and nothing gives me greater pleasure!

I have to admit I am not aware of such legislation, it's not one that *I* would care to challenge in court (which is *my* benchmark, not asking anyone else to follow), but if you can help the OP with something more than an opinion, isn't that what this forum is about? :question::huh::question:

Optimist

55 Max went into administration and was wound up in April. The present managers bought the assets not the liability's.

Any voucher holder was effectively a creditor and ended up with nothing.

DVardysShadow

Optimist wrote: »

55 Max went into administration and was wound up in April. The present managers bought the assets not the liability's.

Any voucher holder was effectively a creditor and ended up with nothing.

Thanks for that. Voucher holders ended up with nothing because 55Max went into liquidation, not because they held vouchers.

DVardysShadow

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me of this thread on the other one, lol.

There you go again, a "you against me", "crossing swords", bla bla bla...

Can't you just do something to assist the OP? You say that the OP DOES have the right to have his/her vouchers honoured, please give him/her the necessary legislation! I assure you, I'd be delighted if I were wrong because it would mean a consumer wins over a company, and nothing gives me greater pleasure!

I have to admit I am not aware of such legislation, it's not one that *I* would care to challenge in court (which is *my* benchmark, not asking anyone else to follow), but if you can help the OP with something more than an opinion, isn't that what this forum is about? :question::huh::question:

There you go, you are careless with your quotes.

I said "Now, it is plain enough that if a company is taken over, all its contracts stand. Why should contracts evidenced by vouchers be the least bit different?"

In this case, the company was not taken over, it went into administration. This is the reason that the vouchers cannot be redeemed, not the fact that they were vouchers.

fthl

With DV myself. Any bit of contract case law should work, even the magnificent Carlill. Because it is a contract and common law thing there won't be a specific bit of legislation.

In any event, if the ltd co the contract was with has now 'died' then the vouchers do too.

bookworm1363

Sorry, I was paraphrasing. So sue me.

Meanwhile, in the real world, any chance you could actually assist the OP in getting their rights upheld instead of keeping on picking at my posts? *yawn*

Since I am so obviously inept and non-knowledgeable and all the other weird and wonderful things you have named me on this and other posts, you have the great opportunity of "winning" the "swordfight" AND helping someone in the bargain, how could you possibly pass such a chance?

Come on now, otherwise people are going to start thinking that you are just nitpicking so as not have to back up your assertions. I won't say anything else on this thread, promise.

aheaton46

bookworm1363, you have been continually wrong on this thread. DVardysShadow and myself have explained the legal situation; in some cases vouchers are to be honoured, in some they are not. It depends on what was taken over. Your first quote "whether they bought the company lock, stock and barrel or not, I'm afraid that makes no difference" is simply wrong.

In the OPs case, the original company went bankrupt so the vouchers cannot be honoured. Unfortunate, but that's life. Another company, another takeover, they might have had more luck.

bookworm1363

aheaton46 wrote: »

bookworm1363, you have been continually wrong on this thread. DVardysShadow and myself have explained the legal situation; in some cases vouchers are to be honoured, in some they are not. It depends on what was taken over.
In the OPs case, the original company went bankrupt so the vouchers cannot be honoured. Unfortunate, but that's life. Another company, another takeover, they might have had more luck.

What I said before the part you have quoted was this:

Nope, they don't have to honour them, it's a different company. A voucher is money against a promise of purchase, if that company doesn't exist any more, the next company is not the one that got the money in the first place, why should they then pay out?

Clearly not the same thing as I was saying then:rotfl:. We both say it's a different company, we both say they don't have to honour the vouchers, (I admit I didn't go into the details about Ltd, bankrupcy, running concerns since it seemed overkill in this occasion) and yet, by saying the same thing as you, I am continually wrong? Hmmm, an interesting concept. :p:p:p

PS: TELLING, repeatedly or not, what "the legal situation" is supposed to be, is not the same as giving people the means to learn for themselves and doesn't make it truthful. I've had a lifetime of people telling me what right I had or hadn't, that I was wrong and they were right etc... to then learn that quite often, they were were actually wrong. I never take someone's word for it, especially when it comes to the legal position, I expect people to show me where it says so. Until then, I reserve judgment.

In this particular instance however, since you agree with me, that either makes us both wrong or both right. Ironic, isn't it? :cool:

DVardysShadow

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Sorry, I was paraphrasing. So sue me.

Meanwhile, in the real world, any chance you could actually assist the OP in getting their rights upheld instead of keeping on picking at my posts? *yawn*

Since I am so obviously inept and non-knowledgeable and all the other weird and wonderful things you have named me on this and other posts, you have the great opportunity of "winning" the "swordfight" AND helping someone in the bargain, how could you possibly pass such a chance?

Come on now, otherwise people are going to start thinking that you are just nitpicking so as not have to back up your assertions. I won't say anything else on this thread, promise.

• Don't be so melodramatic
• I've said that you are wrong and mistaken, but I have not yet called you a name
• I'll call you a name now, You are a drama queen
• fthl explains why it is difficult to point to specific legislation. [I am still waiting for you to identify the 'different rules' which apply to vouchers.]
• As for helping people, we are doing it by pointing out your errors, so that no one goes away from this thread under the mistaken impression that the rules for vouchers are 'different'
• As for nitpicking, well I would say that the difference is a matter of principle. If you think the differences are 'nitpicking' then perhaps you should be the one to leave it alone.