Taking Red Letter Days to court....

lincroft1710

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.

Book Tokens and Waterstones Gift Tokens have a TWO year limit between transactions

Azari

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Book Tokens and Waterstones Gift Tokens have a TWO year limit between transactions

That's irrelevant.

He's just giving the lie to the idea that 'everyone' has two year or less validity.

Although that had already been shown to be nonsense way back in the thread.

System

Azari wrote: »

That's irrelevant.

He's just giving the lie to the idea that 'everyone' has two year or less validity.

Although that had already been shown to be nonsense way back in the thread.

who are you addressing? You're replying to a post but instead of saying "you're" you are saying "he". Does that not show a basic lack of manners and complete disrespect to the poster?

you seem to have this incredible arrogance that whatever you post is right and everyone agrees with you when in fact I believe most people think you are an idiot! All this shown to be nonsense you've shown nothing!

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

who are you addressing? You're replying to a post but instead of saying "you're" you are saying "he".

Stupid, much?

Does that not show a basic lack of manners and complete disrespect to the poster?

No, to anyone with basic English language comprehension skills it woud indicate that I was talking about the 'third person' - i.e. the one Lincroft quoted.

you seem to have this incredible arrogance that whatever you post is right and everyone agrees with you when in fact I believe most people think you are an idiot!

You need to learn some basic comprehension skills and stop with all this meta-argument.

Anyone who agrees with you is allowed (by you) to post without comment. Just because I don't agree with you you make spurious comments about "arrogantly thinking whatever I post is correct".

Newsflash: People generally believe that what they post is correct.

System

Azari wrote: »

Stupid, much?



No, to anyone with basic English language comprehension skills it woud indicate that I was talking about the 'third person' - i.e. the one Lincroft quoted.



You need to learn some basic comprehension skills and stop with all this meta-argument.

Anyone who agrees with you is allowed (by you) to post without comment. Just because I don't agree with you you make spurious comments about "arrogantly thinking whatever I post is correct".

Newsflash: People generally believe that what they post is correct.

LOL being called stupid by you is interesting! In an unrelated argument you edited my posts to make out I agreed with you and then referred to me as Goatbreath!

If you were referencing a poster who you were not quoting then anyone with even a modicam of intelligence or even basic manners would have referred to the poster by name and not just "He". (For one thing you are assuming a gender which may be incorrect).

This whole topic has gone the same way all your post do, if anyone disagrees with you then you instantly dismiss their views and opinions then either ignore them or attempt to belittle them. Its childish and petty. You should be ashamed of yourself. I assume you are a grown man so try and act your age.

burnleymik

Shhh Goatbreath! :p:p:p


I really hope OP updates us on this one, it's been an interesting thread.

Oliver14

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.

I assume you mean analogy not analogue. Anyway its an analogy that doesn't work at all. Banks work on entirely different regulations than the Retail sector you have just tried to compare Apples with Bananas.

When you buy a voucher you are purchasing a product be it for an event or for the same monetary value of goods. You have not asked them to keep your money you have bought a product. A voucher is not the equivalent of money (which it says on the back of most). So your argument does not support or help the OPs case in fact it does the opposite.

arcon5

Azari wrote: »

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.

what a barmy example!!

Azari

Oliver14 wrote: »

I assume you mean analogy not analogue.

No, the 'analogue' is the thing you are using to stand in for what you are examining. The analogy is the the way the system behaves.

See here.

Anyway its an analogy that doesn't work at all. Banks work on entirely different regulations than the Retail sector you have just tried to compare Apples with Bananas.

You're putting the cart before the horse. It will be up to a judge to decide whether the voucher/giftcard industry is allowed to award itself dramatically more favourable terms than banking industry.

They are both doing exactly the same thing (as far as it goes). Taking money and placing it in an account for use by their customer at a later date.

There's no immediately obvious reason why one set of operators (the giftcard industry) should be allowed to confiscate their customer's money when the other (the banking industry cannot).

When you buy a voucher you are purchasing a product be it for an event or for the same monetary value of goods. You have not asked them to keep your money you have bought a product. A voucher is not the equivalent of money (which it says on the back of most). So your argument does not support or help the OPs case in fact it does the opposite.

That is just one of a number of ways of spinning the situation.

A judge might agree with you. Then again s/he might not.

arcon5 wrote:

what a barmy example!!

Nice, well reasoned, post.

Moglex

goater78 wrote: »

If you were referencing a poster who you were not quoting then anyone with even a modicam of intelligence or even basic manners would have referred to the poster by name and not just "He". (For one thing you are assuming a gender which may be incorrect).

LOL, you have this complete wrong, Goater78.

It's perfectly normal practice to refer to people you are not talking to in the third person. People do it all the time and I can assure you I'm not in the least offended.

This whole topic has gone the same way all your post do, if anyone disagrees with you then you instantly dismiss their views and opinions then either ignore them or attempt to belittle them. Its childish and petty. You should be ashamed of yourself. I assume you are a grown man so try and act your age.

I'd have to say that you seem to be projecting here. Most of the posters arguing this topic, on whichever side, seem to manage to remain civil but you appear to be on a crusade and keep 'arguing the man' rather than arguing your case.