Taking Red Letter Days to court....

System

Azari wrote: »

In your opinion.

But I think that demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

If you were regularly losing a sum of money because you were being threatened with court over an alleged unfair term and you are confident that the term is fair and legal. What would you do?

a) Keep paying out so that your continue to lose revenue to which you believe you are entitled? (And, remember, this revenue comes straight from your bottom line.)

b) Spend a few hundred to defend the case so that, in future, you could refer any claimants to the result (decisions in small claims courts do not set legal precedents but they would certainly be persuasive to people contemplating laying out on a claim) and maintain that part of your revenue stream?

On the other hand, if you are not confident of your position you would almost certainly simply give in so that you could maintain that part of your revenue from people who do not know about, or do not understand, unfair terms and conditions legislation.

Ah some more rubbish from the forums resident "expert". You have absolutely no idea how the real world operates!

If it is cheaper to settle the claim than to contest in court they will settle the claim and let them redeem their voucher. They are not going to spend hundreds of pounds defending a £100 voucher in a small claims court. Especially as this case can be held anywhere in the country.

A similar thing happened with Middlesborough football club when some fan sued them because they bought a shirt with a players name and then the player was sold. It would have cost Boro £100 to defend the claim so just gave him his £40 back as it wasn't worth the hassle.

burnleymik

goater78 wrote: »

Ah some more rubbish from the forums resident "expert". You have absolutely no idea how the real world operates!

If it is cheaper to settle the claim than to contest in court they will settle the claim and let them redeem their voucher. They are not going to spend hundreds of pounds defending a £100 voucher in a small claims court. Especially as this case can be held anywhere in the country.

A similar thing happened with Middlesborough football club when some fan sued them because they bought a shirt with a players name and then the player was sold. It would have cost Boro £100 to defend the claim so just gave him his £40 back as it wasn't worth the hassle.

Do they not just claim the costs back from the the person making the claim?

Also if it was so 'case-closed' it would make sense to get it to court and set the precedent for future disputes, would it not?

Azari

burnleymik wrote: »

Do they not just claim the costs back from the the person making the claim?

They cannot claim all of the costs back but they can claim some travel expenses when the case is moved to a court local to the plaintiff.

Also if it was so 'case-closed' it would make sense to get it to court and set the precedent for future disputes, would it not?

Goater is a bit of a joke poster, descending, as he does, to ad hominen argument when he cannot get his own way and, as you can see, he completely ignores the argument that it would be well worthwhile to fight a case IF you were sure of your grounds (and a solicitor would be able to give you a reasonable guess as to the way the case might go).

System

Azari wrote: »

They cannot claim all of the costs back but they can claim some travel expenses when the case is moved to a court local to the plaintiff.


Goater is a bit of a joke poster, descending, as he does, to ad hominen argument when he cannot get his own way and, as you can see, he completely ignores the argument that it would be well worthwhile to fight a case IF you were sure of your grounds (and a solicitor would be able to give you a reasonable guess as to the way the case might go).

I love being called a joke poster by you, last time i disagreed with you on a subject you selectively edited the quotes I had written to imply that I was agreeing with you! It was the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum!

RLD could fight the case, and will probably win, however if it costs more money to do that than it does to settle the claim they will settle the claim as it does not make business sense to contest it. I assume by the amount of time you spend on here you are either very young, or don't have a job so probably don't really understand how business works.

I would guess (and this is just a guess) that the majority of people who buy RLD vouchers manage to redeem them within the more than generous timescale. I find it highly unlikely that RLD make a fortune from people who don't redeem the voucher. Therefore there is no need for them to set a legal precedent to defend their position in this matter.

Plus as you have already said when they do win small claims courts are not binding judgements so there is nothing stopping another customer taking them to court for the same reason. They will win again but still end up paying more than it would cost to just redeem the voucher!

Oliver14

Azari wrote: »

If you were regularly losing a sum of money because you were being threatened with court over an alleged unfair term and you are confident that the term is fair and legal. What would you do?

Why do you think they a frequently being threatened with court? Just because one person posts on a message board because they couldn't be bothered/ forgot to take into account the dates and now wants to take them to court does not mean there are 100s of other people wanting to do this.

Azari

Oliver14 wrote: »

Azari wrote: »

If you were regularly losing a sum of money because you were being threatened with court over an alleged unfair term and you are confident that the term is fair and legal. What would you do?

Why do you think they a frequently being threatened with court?

Which part of 'If' are you struggling with?

Moglex

Checked in Tesco today. Their gift cards remain valid until there is no transaction for FIVE years. So we have Boots with unlimited vouchers, and Tesco with 5 year gift cards. Seems to me that those offering much shorter periods are 'trying it on' and deserve to get thoroughly hammered in court.

System

Moglex wrote: »

Checked in Tesco today. Their gift cards remain valid until there is no transaction for FIVE years. So we have Boots with unlimited vouchers, and Tesco with 5 year gift cards. Seems to me that those offering much shorter periods are 'trying it on' and deserve to get thoroughly hammered in court.

i think until the OP gets a court judgement this whole thread is pointless and getting a bit argumentative.

Although I would say that it is not suprising that a major company like Tesco have better facilities to hold data for a longer term than a small company like RLD.

Azari

Moglex wrote: »

Checked in Tesco today. Their gift cards remain valid until there is no transaction for FIVE years. So we have Boots with unlimited vouchers, and Tesco with 5 year gift cards. Seems to me that those offering much shorter periods are 'trying it on' and deserve to get thoroughly hammered in court.

Interesting.

Should a case come to court, the judge will firstly have to consider whether it is acceptable to have a contract term that allows someone to simply take money that they have effectively been given for safekeeping.

The obvious analogue here is a bank. Would people consider it acceptable for a high street bank to place a term in its T&Cs that if you did not access your account for a month they would simply take the money from you. This is effectively what people running these schemes are doing.

If he did deem this to be acceptable, he would next have to decide what a reasonable minimum term would be. I would guess that 9 months would be considered much too short a period.

But, basically, we'll just have to wait and see if they ever have the guts to let a case get to court.

On goater's reading of the situation, all you need to do is threaten them with court action if you overrun their limit because they will perpetually capitulate as it's not worth fighting.

System

Azari wrote: »

Interesting.

Should a case come to court, the judge will firstly have to consider whether it is acceptable to have a contract term that allows someone to simply take money that they have effectively been given for safekeeping.

The obvious analogue here is a bank. Would people consider it acceptable for a high street bank to place a term in its T&Cs that if you did not access your account for a month they would simply take the money from you. This is effectively what people running these schemes are doing.

If he did deem this to be acceptable, he would next have to decide what a reasonable minimum term would be. I would guess that 9 months would be considered much too short a period.

But, basically, we'll just have to wait and see if they ever have the guts to let a case get to court.

On goater's reading of the situation, all you need to do is threaten them with court action if you overrun their limit because they will perpetually capitulate as it's not worth fighting.

Great you're back!