The Mobile Outlet

Quentin

chapeau wrote: »

You can only claim for the amount which would restore your position to that you would have been in if the tort had not taken place. Currently, she is out of money by one claim only.

This is irrelevant to the advice in this thread which you say is "loads of nonsense"

And no-one has mentioned "punitive damages".

rose28454

Thanks so much Any idea of the fax number?

Shelby

The whole point here is that the line rental is payable to the network and the cashback comes from the retailer.

The retailer induced the purchaser to enter into a contract with the network by promising to refund to the customer the cost the customer would incur in line rental payable to the network.

If the retailer then repudiates the contract between itself and the customer, the customer is still liable for the whole year’s line rental charged by the network - with or without the cashback.

By rejecting the first (or a subsequent) cashback claim, the retailer is also denying the customer all subsequent cashbacks. Under such circumstances, the customer has to continue paying the network. That is the true loss that the customer incurs as a result of the tort; it isn’t restricted to the single instalment that hasn’t been paid.

So, the remedy sought by the customer is the remaining amount of the cashback - with which to discharge his inescapable liability to make the rest of the year’s line rental payments to the network.

That's why judges have been making these awards.

Shelby

mobilejunkie wrote: »

In addition, a bill showing a given period of connection (again common to most dealers' t&c nowadays) merely has to show that it is dated that number of days after connection to satisfy any judge with half a brain.

Mobilejunkie, Q.C.,

Please could you explain to those of us possessed of entire brains how Superdon's bill from his network on December 11, proving that he was connected during the period from 12 November to 11 December, will show anybody, no matter what size their brain, that he was connected continuously to the network between 11 August and 11 December.

This is the answer that has been eluding us lesser mortals.

James212

Shelby wrote: »

The whole point here is that the line rental is payable to the network and the cashback comes from the retailer.

The retailer induced the purchaser to enter into a contract with the network by promising to refund to the customer the cost the customer would incur in line rental payable to the network.

If the retailer then repudiates the contract between itself and the customer, the customer is still liable for the whole year’s line rental charged by the network - with or without the cashback.

Hi Shelby,

This was just the point I was going to make to chapeau.
His earlier post appears to suggest a link between the two completely separate contracts (that is between the customer and TMO (retailer) and between the customer and the network provider (Vodaphone, 02, Orange etc):

chapeau wrote: »

....you are not entitled to future cashbacks quite yet. For instance, you might stop paying your phone bill, you cannot claim cash back until you have paid it out in the first place.

As you say, the contract between the customer and TMO (under which cash back is paid) is completely separate from the contract between the customer and the network provider. Which is obviously why, despite any problems the customer may have with claiming cash back amounts from the retailer, they cannot in turn halt payment of their line rental to the network provider, without breaching their contract with the network provider and accepting all consequences that involves.

This is how I see it anyway, although I have no legal experience

chapeau

You are wrong in your interpretation of what I said. The fact that the two contracts are totally seperate is why the cashback provider is not liable for future payments to the phone service provider.

The cashback provider is responsible solely for paying cashback according to the terms of his contract with the customer.

If he breaches this contract, damages are limited to what the customer has lost only from his contract with the cash back provider. That is, in this example, claim one only.

Future claims are dealt with in the future.

Quentin

You don't seem to have read the thread - even though you say the advice in it is wrong.

I'll put you out of your misery.

The advice given, and acted upon with results is that if the retailer breaches the contract by refusing to pay any legitimate claim, then that breach is a relevant one.

bobstheboy

As a mere mortal who has fallen foul of one of these dodgy dealers (CNM), I read this thread with interest and amusement.

It appears that the "legal experts" amongst us are having a debate about the pros and cons of the T&C's, much of which is flying way over my head !!

If these "super brains" are having so much difficulty making sense of the T&C's what chance have us lesser beings got ?

I would apply common sense and if in difficulty ask the retailer. If I did not get a satisfactory response in writing I would apply a common sense approach and if refused cashback sue. The Civil Courts are there to protect all our interests and if you act reasonably and in good faith and abide by the T&C's in a logical manner you will win. I did fall foul initially but won the war.

Now, please continue the debate, it is entertaining.

Bob

mobilejunkie

Seems to work perfectly well with Mobile Affiliates whose t&c are not much different apart from the timings. I'll let the legal geniuses argue about the minutia. If it were not the case that you can send a bill within x days of the claim date I think we'd all be stuffed whoever we dealt with. But then, I'm a humble ordinary person who has had 26 cashback deals and never failed to get any money back (having only had to prompt one similar outfit with a LBA once). I prefer sensible information and advice rather than the rather pathetic arguments which usually dominate this thread. Sensible information among the ridiculous is more useful. My experience in court is that a QC is AS likely to stuff up your case than make it.

Shelby

chapeau wrote: »

You are wrong in your interpretation of what I said. The fact that the two contracts are totally seperate is why the cashback provider is not liable for future payments to the phone service provider.

The cashback provider is responsible solely for paying cashback according to the terms of his contract with the customer.

If he breaches this contract, damages are limited to what the customer has lost only from his contract with the cash back provider. That is, in this example, claim one only.

Future claims are dealt with in the future.

If that were correct (which it isn't) the retailers would be appealing successfully against these awards of full cashback entitlement (which they aren't).