Why do mobiles get blocked?

ZhugeEX

blondmark wrote: »

But what relevance is it whether T-Mobile believe I don't own the phone? I have all the papers proving legal transfer of ownership which is proof enough for a court.

Hi, Please read the edited version of my post.

If it has been reported as stole and the guy who sold it to you has committed insurance fraud then threaten him by saying you'll go to the police and show them the sale form from ebay and that it's a criminal offence to claim insurance on a phone sold for profit before barring.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

That example is limited to real property; this is personal property.

Exactly!!

This bona fide rule does not apply personal property. Are you starting to get it now?

Edit: In general, it doesn't apply to personal property. The "nemo dat quod non habet rule" – no one can give a better title than he himself possesses - is enshrined under common law and under statute.

There are a very small number of specific exceptions to the "nemo dat quod non habet" rule relevant to personal property, none of which are applicable to this potential situation of a sale of a stolen phone by a fraudster/thief.

Estoppel (arises when the true owner leads the innocent purchaser to believe that the unauthorised seller has the right to sell the goods),

Factors Act 1889 (This exception applies where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of goods or documents of title to goods, any sale, pledge, or other disposition of the goods, made by him when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent),

Voidable Contract (Under this exception a voidable title that has not been avoided yet could be transferred to a buyer that did not know about the deficiency of the title)

Seller in possession (a seller who is possession of the goods that he has already sold, can sell them again to a 2nd buyer and that buyer can acquire a good title if he receives them in good faith and without notice of the first sale),

Buyer in possession (This exception allows a buyer who has been allowed by the seller to take possession of the goods or documents of title before property has passed, and then resells)

Part 3 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 (A bona fide purchaser for value of a motor vehicle from a person in possession under a hire-purchase agreement or a conditional sale agreement obtains a good title.)

blondmark

Let's make it nice and simple then with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser_for_value_without_notice

A bona fide purchaser (BFP) – referred to more completely as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – is a term used in the law of real property and personal property to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. A BFP must purchase for value, meaning that he or she must pay for the property rather than simply be the beneficiary of a gift. Even when a party fraudulently conveys property to a BFP (for example, by selling to the BFP property that has already been conveyed to someone else), that BFP will, depending on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, take good (valid) title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party.

blondmark

Now that's out the way, what gives a mobile network the right to block someone's mobile phone when they have documentary proof of ownership?

blondmark

ZhugeEX wrote: »

Hi, Please read the edited version of my post.

If it has been reported as stole and the guy who sold it to you has committed insurance fraud then threaten him by saying you'll go to the police and show them the sale form from ebay and that it's a criminal offence to claim insurance on a phone sold for profit before barring.

It's odd because I paid for a search on my handset online, and the report came back saying that it had been blocked but it had not been reported stolen. Perhaps it's some sort of contract dispute the seller has with T-Mobile?

ZhugeEX

blondmark wrote: »

It's odd because I paid for a search on my handset online, and the report came back saying that it had been blocked but it had not been reported stolen. Perhaps it's some sort of contract dispute the seller has with T-Mobile?

The owner of a mobile can block a phone if
-The phone is stolen

The network can block a phone when
-The owner breaches the contract, for example not paying consecutive bills.

Like i said, a contract phone is registered under the contract/original owner regardless of who actually uses it and the network have the right to block it if the contract is breached.

blondmark

ZhugeEX wrote: »

The owner of a mobile can block a phone if
-The phone is stolen

The network can block a phone when
-The owner breaches the contract, for example not paying consecutive bills.

That would certainly be true if the seller still owns it, but now I own it and the network do not have that right against me since I have no contract with them.

ZhugeEX

blondmark wrote: »

That would certainly be true if the seller still owns it, but now I own it and the network do not have that right against me since I have no contract with them.

I see this thread is now pointless. Write a letter to T-Mobile Head office and see what they say. first line CS will get you nowhere so make copies of the ebay stuff, IMEI number etc... Quote the BFP law and send them a letter.

Why you didn;t do this 15 posts ago i don't know.

But like i said, depending on the issue, don't expect to get far.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

Let's make it nice and simple then with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser_for_value_without_notice

A bona fide purchaser (BFP) – referred to more completely as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – is a term used in the law of real property and personal property to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. A BFP must purchase for value, meaning that he or she must pay for the property rather than simply be the beneficiary of a gift. Even when a party fraudulently conveys property to a BFP (for example, by selling to the BFP property that has already been conveyed to someone else), that BFP will, depending on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, take good (valid) title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party.

"depending on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction" is key here.

In English Law, "nemo dat quod non habet rule" – no one can give a better title than he himself possesses - is enshrined under common law and under statute.

There are a small number of specific/technical exceptions which I've now outlined in my post above.

Herongull

blondmark wrote: »

Now that's out the way, what gives a mobile network the right to block someone's mobile phone when they have documentary proof of ownership?

Read my post of 11:39! Read and learn!

Why can't people do research? They can't bothered.:eek:

So which exception of the"nemo dat quod non habet" rule in English Law are you relying on?