quidco declined claims who is responsible

Money-Saving-King

taxiphil wrote: »

The membership fee?

Even without that, it's a unilateral contract, so the performance of the obligations specified in the promisor's offer would satisfy the consideration element (principles established many moons ago in that old law school favourite, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co).

What if like I said though the commission had gone to another site, meaning the user cocked up, didn't clear cookies/stay clear of other sites with affiliate links or made some error somehow.

With the Internet being a complex thing where the party wishing to get the cashback has to follow set instructions to the word & not get it wrong surely old school law (I assume before the Internet and this complex situation) wouldn't be a good comparison?

taxiphil

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

What if like I said though the commission had gone to another site, meaning the user cocked up, didn't clear cookies/stay clear of other sites with affiliate links or made some error somehow.

With the Internet being a complex thing where the party wishing to get the cashback has to follow set instructions to the word & not get it wrong surely old school law (I assume before the Internet and this complex situation) wouldn't be a good comparison?

The case I quoted, Carlill, is a cornerstone of contract law and its principles are still applied in the courts day in, day out. It's very relevant to cashback purchases because of the issue of unilateral contract (when an offer is made "to the world at large", i.e. placing a notice on the internet - or a newspaper ad in those days - saying "if you do X, we'll give you Y amount of money", performance of the specified conditions by the offeree constitutes both acceptance and consideration).

The issue with cashback sites is proof. I agree with you that it's a minefield - how does the user prove they cleared cookies, etc, and how does Quidco refute it if they're resisting the claim?

Personally, when I'm using Quidco/TCB for any cashback over a certain amount, I take a series of screenshots (complete with timestamps) every step of the way - clearing cookies, the wording on the relevant Quidco page, the subsequent purchase, etc. But it's unrealistic to expect every consumer to adopt such a belt and braces approach.

Money-Saving-King

taxiphil wrote: »

Personally, when I'm using Quidco/TCB for any cashback over a certain amount, I take a series of screenshots (complete with timestamps) every step of the way - clearing cookies, the wording on the relevant Quidco page, the subsequent purchase, etc. But it's unrealistic to expect every consumer to adopt such a belt and braces approach.

I use either Firefox or Chrome for normal browsing but had problems with tracking and had to raise claims. I decided to the re-download Internet Explorer (it seems more basic). When I want to use a cashback site once I've done all my shopping around etc I then open Internet Explorer and make the purchase. I've never had a problem since I now use a browser which is isolated for only cashback purchase use.

GrungeMeister

We switched from BT to Plusnet via Quidco in November. The £100 offer tracked but then was declined. We raised a claim straight away and Plusnet paid it last week.

OP - don't give up ! Just raise your own claim, be patient and you'll get there eventually !

keyser666

Post 10 makes interesting reading from the link, although this is TCB same would prob work.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354870-Topcashback-at-it-again

antrobus

taxiphil wrote: »

The case I quoted, Carlill, is a cornerstone of contract law and its principles are still applied in the courts day in, day out. It's very relevant to cashback purchases because of the issue of unilateral contract (when an offer is made "to the world at large", i.e. placing a notice on the internet - or a newspaper ad in those days - saying "if you do X, we'll give you Y amount of money", performance of the specified conditions by the offeree constitutes both acceptance and consideration).....

That is absolutely correct as far as it goes. However, the issue with cashback purchases is that the likes of Quidco are not saying "if you do X, we'll give you Y amount of money"; they are saying, "if you do X, and we receive Y amount of money, we will pass it on to you". Which is not quite the same thing.

Money-Saving-King

antrobus wrote: »

That is absolutely correct as far as it goes. However, the issue with cashback purchases is that the likes of Quidco are not saying "if you do X, we'll give you Y amount of money"; they are saying, "if you do X, and we receive Y amount of money, we will pass it on to you". Which is not quite the same thing.

Yeah exactly, it depends on tracking which is a complex thing which as I said there's no way that "old school" law would surely be relevant because it doesn't include these complexities. Also technically you don't pay Quidco upfront to pay for a service, they only charge a fee once you have got cashback.