Section 75 protection for delivery in 3 years' time

Optimist

bingo_bango wrote: »

Ooohhh....... no bonus points for you!!

The Act doesn't say anything like that in S.75

It states that 'if a debtor in a DCS agreement has in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, a claim against the supplier.....'

Can be one or one thousand items. It's the number of transactions that matters.

Although I suspect you might be right about what the credit company will try to argue.

lol I far to old for bonus points however the act does state that the cardholder will be jointly liable providing the cash price of a single item is not less than £100 plus it has a upper limit the amount of which I forget at the moment.

I am not aware that has changed.

bingo_bango

But not in relation to the scenario outlined by OP, where he is purchasing a number of items.

For those who don't have access to the text of S. 75, see below. You need to read the whole of the section to get the meaning of the section, not single lines.

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier
(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.
(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

• (a) under a non-commercial agreement, or
• (b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [£100] or more than [£30,000] [or]
• [(c) under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit—
• • (i) which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
  • (ii) which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one].

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.
(5) In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

I'm posting in relation to this situation...not S. 75 issues in general.

And you're never too old for a bonus

Optimist

You are of course correct, just this once

Curses another case lost, thank heavens I am now retired

maa299

The wine cases are each between £100 and £30,000 for the purposes of Section 75, but it would seem silly for the credit card company to claim that a £900 12-bottle case doesn't qualify, as the 12 bottles (of the same wine and vintage) in their original wooden case are worth a lot more than the 12 bottles alone. The purchase is intended as a whole and the cases never contain mixed bottles.

So, all in all, I seem to understand that Section 75 protection would apply irrespective of the extended delivery time. Do you agree?

gnaril

Afternoon. Thought I would throw my hat in the ring here as i deal with section 75 claims.

From your post it would be right to assume that section 75 would be covered for the transaction. The posts trying to exclude liability due to individual costings is null and void. its a non starter really so take that off the table.

It is very difficult to comment as your contract in relation to the purchase of said wines it might not be as clear cut as you believe. Worry reading the merchant in UK and Vineyard overseas etc. Might need to go over that to clarify that the UK merchant arent acting as agent or something and your contact with them is simply to transfer the funds to the 3rd party. previous post has clarified D-C-S so no need to go into that.

Despite some of the crap posted on this forums its a bit of a misconception that banks will do anything to exempt liability. Half the people on here dont have a clue how it works. Granted I can only speak for me and the people I work with I find if anything banks are (depending on which ones :P) take these cases and deal with fine and are on the opposite side of this and looking to pay out on cases instead of trying to find loopholes for excluding them. Section 75 is pretty clear cut, you either have a case for breach of contract and/or misrepresentation or you dont. IT either falls within the act or it doesnt.

Its the crap thats posted online and poor advice given to people believing they have a claim when simple internet search would have verified they dont.

Previous post is correct aswell the timescale is not relevant. It is down to the customer to prove the claim not for the bank to dis-prove. If the company went down at any point all your contracts and confirmation they have gone bust and you havent got the goods is pretty much enought to be paying out. As long as there was an explanation for the delay in the delivery of the goods either from yourself directly of your documentation clearly shows that this was the case.

At the end of the day if you do have a case it aint worth the banks to decline it due to the costs involved if it goes to FOS.

Really cant forsee any issues from the information provided just make sure you keep copies of all contracts,correspondance etc in case required that you need to make a claim.

All the best OP.

maa299

Thanks everyone! You've been great help, really!

halibut2209

Send us a bottle, and we'll call it quits!