Why do mobiles get blocked?

Herongull

And since you believe that looking up something you don't understand in Wikipedia is a substitute for proper research and understanding, here is the Wikipedia entry for Nemo dat quod non habet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet

This shows some of the significant differences between American and English law.

There are actually slightly more technical exceptions in English Law (which I've listed in my post of 11:39 yesterday) to the general principal of Nemo dat quod non habet.

I'm rubbing your nose in it now, but you seem to be both very ignorant of the basics in English law and very lazy in not doing proper research.

blondmark

Herongull wrote: »

"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.

You seem to be questioning firstly whether the 'bona fide purchaser' rule applies to English law and secondly whether it overrides 'nemo dat quod non habet'. The answer is yes to both. I'll refer you back to Wikipedia again because it's laid out so simply.

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

"Misrepresentation in English law

A clear bar to rescission is where unwinding a contractual exchange may cause injustice to an innocent third party. This will particularly be the case where an item has changed hands and then been sold on to a third person. If the first contract is declared void, then the second contract with the third person would also be void, due to the principle of nemo dat quod non habet.

However the equity courts decided that a contract could not be declared void if a third party's rights had intervened, provided the third party had acted in good faith and given consideration (the principle of bona fide purchaser). So in Phillips v Brooks Ltd[42] it was not possible for a jeweller that had been defrauded by a rogue to claim back a ring from the pawn shop where the ring had been sold on."

Hope this helps, although it's academic since the mobile I bought was not stolen - it was probably blocked over some contractual dispute between the seller and the mobile network.

blondmark

ZhugeEX wrote: »

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.

Well as mentioned, I have already asked T-Mobile six times what their position is, and each time they made clear that they will not discuss the position with me. The 'BFP issue' is a red herring after a poster dragged it off topic. I bought a report showing the phone is not registered stolen; it's a straightforward sale backed by documentary evidence, including the original paperwork T-Mobile gave the seller.

I posted here only to discover the reasons why mobile networks block phones - particularly those that belong to other people who aren't their customers.

In this instance it appears it may have happened due to a contract dispute between the seller and his mobile network, and they are ignoring the ownership issue, highlighting a flaw in the system.

So thanks for that - job done!

grumbler

blondmark wrote: »

...
In this instance it appears it may have happened due to a contract dispute between the seller and his mobile network, ...

Unlikely. Normally networks don't do this.

ZhugeEX wrote: »

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

Any quote from any T&C to back this? In fact all networks vigorously deny any link between the handset and the contract.
If bills are not paid, they normally block/suspend the sim, not the phone.

blondmark

grumbler wrote: »

Unlikely. Normally networks don't do this.
Any quote from any T&C to back this? In fact all networks vigorously deny any link between the handset and the contract.
If bills are not paid, they normally block/suspend the sim, not the phone.

Thanks for your helpful advice. I guess I'm none the wiser then. Hopefully T-Mobile will open up to a court instead if they wish to defend my claim.

oopsadaisydoddle

blondmark wrote: »

Thanks for your helpful advice. I guess I'm none the wiser then. Hopefully T-Mobile will open up to a court instead if they wish to defend my claim.

I am glad you have finally realised this.

I can't believe the rubbish you have been spouting when you are supposedly so hot on law.

Now I am not for one minute suggesting that you're not right in what you say about this legal title thing and you being the owner. I am not saying you are right either because honestly, I don't know.

What I do know is that T-Mobile 'sold' or have registered a phone to a person. That person has then sold it to you (we'll say legally for the sake of argument). T-Mobile however have NO confirmation of this (apart from what you say you have in the form of ebay receipts etc). Whilst T-Mobile have no confirmation of this then they have no obligation to act on anything you say. Their contract is with their customer who it seems has now (probably) told them the phone is lost/stolen.

The only way this can be resolved is to either get the recognised owner of said phone to confirm to T-Mobile that they have passed it on to you OR to take it to court.

I have to say, I think you are complicating things for the sake of a legal argument. Possibly bored on a Saturday night?

grumbler

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

What I do know is that T-Mobile 'sold' or have registered a phone to a person. That person has then sold it to you (we'll say legally for the sake of argument). T-Mobile however have NO confirmation of this (apart from what you say you have in the form of ebay receipts etc). Whilst T-Mobile have no confirmation of this then they have no obligation to act on anything you say.

You are saying this like if there was a system in place at the network for accepting a confirmation and changing the 'registration'.
Let's say it's a fully documented purchase, not a ebay one. Will this change anything? No. The network doesn't say that ebay is not good enough for them. They just don't care and don't want to know anything except their original and meaningless 'registration' and the *words* from the person they supplied the mobile to.
The entire system is flawed. Networks have to either provide a system for changing and tracking the ownership or stop blocking the phones.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

You are saying this like if there is the system in place at the network for accepting a confirmation and changing the 'registration'.
Let's say it's a fully documented purchase, not a ebay one. Will this change anything? No. The network doesn't say that ebay is not good enough for them. They just don't care and don't want to know anything except their original and meaningless 'registration' and the *words* from the person they supplied the mobile to. The entire system is flawed.

No, I don't say it like there is a system in place.

Like I said, if the person they sold it to phone up and said it was5 lost/stolen then they would unblock it (unless blocked for other reasons). It's not that they don't want to know, it's that their contract is with their customer and when that customer tells them that this phone has been lost/stolen, then that is what they act upon. That is what they are obliged to do.

I also don't disagree that there should be some sort of system in place that 'gets around' this, but while there isn't, it's a bit pointless arguing about it.

Also, in most cases where phones are sold on legitimitely, these problems don't occur. It is only the ones where the person who sells it on is dodgy that there are issues. Seems to me that whilst the system is as it is, OP's problem is with the person they bought it off, not T-Mobile.

grumbler

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

... That is what they are obliged to do.

OK, where does it say that they are obliged to block? And even if it is said somewhere this doesn't mean that it is legal to do this.

Also, in most cases where phones are sold on legitimitely, these problems don't occur. It is only the ones where the person who sells it on is dodgy that there are issues.

A correct system cannot rely on honesty of people. If all people were honest there would be no need to block phones. However, as I said earlier, blocking is pointless as it doesn't benefit anybody. It doesn't help to return lost/stolen phones to their owners and it doesn't stop thieves from stealing phones.

oopsadaisydoddle

grumbler wrote: »

OK, where does it say that they are obliged to block? And even if it is said somewhere this doesn't mean the it is legal to do this.
A correct system cannot rely on honesty of people. If all people were honest there would be no need to block phones. However, as I said earlier, blocking is pointless as it doesn't benefit anybody.

It doesn't specifically say that they are but if that customer then wants to claim under insurance for said phone, the insurance companies require them to be blocked.

So in this case, blocking does benefit the person making the claim for a lost or stolen phone.