Prepaid Card Negative Balance?

Mr_Lawnmower

chattychappy wrote: »

Oh this thread is getting a bit silly...

I'd recommend the original poster reads some decent textbooks on property law (as a subject within criminal law, i.e. theft and fraud) and contract law. Not only is this thread frustratingly hypothetical, his or her understanding of some key concepts is some way wide of the mark, especially when it comes to fraud. If you want to understand how the pieces of the law fit together in hypothetical situations, you have to understand the law first.

It's impossible to comment sensibly on many of the points the original poster has made under these circumstances.


I do, however, endorse the views of those posters who have observed that a negative balance is a breach of the terms and conditions and would not be deliberately allowed.

If the systems attempting to prevent a negative balance fail, the negative balance can become the foundation of a breach of contract action if it cannot otherwise be recovered. The cardholder has not created credit in these circumstances, just a debt that can be enforced against him via the usual processes.


If the card holder set out deliberately to spend money on a prepaid card that had not been loaded on the card, he or she may well commit fraud by false representation, contrary to section 2 Fraud Act 2006. I'm not intending to enter into a detailed discussion of the elements of that offence, especially the definition of "dishonestly", which may well be determined via the Ghosh test in this instance.

Doing anything more than merely preparatory to committing this offence, such as making a failed attempt, may well be attempted fraud by false representation contrary to section 2 Fraud Act 2006 and section 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981.


In this case, the card holder is not drawing down on an agreed line of credit, which means it cannot be a "thing in action" and is not therefore property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. This means creating a negative balance on a prepay card cannot be theft contrary to section 1 Theft Act 1968.


Being subjected to a breach of contract and possibly a fraud or attempted fraud does not make the actions of the card provider fraudulent!

[Deleted User]

There are some people who should never be allowed any kind of credit ever because they just aren't responsible adults. Sounds like the OP is one of them.

It used to be the case, on a flight for example, where the airline wouldn't be able to check your card and you could possibly use it over its limit and receive goods such as duty free. But then, if you knowingly "buy" items without the funds isn't that theft?

But it's always the card issuers fault, isn't it? :wall:

bery_451

Can you please stop all the negative trolling and get back to the topic and LOOL I never heard so much nonsense in my life that is a cardholder is using his/her own card which is fraud... LMAO

What next? Driving my own car becomes a stolen car?

Back to the topic...

Why pay as you go sims do not go into negative balance?

chattychappy

fozmcfc wrote: »

Looking at the OP other threads, you will find, they simply ask question after question and never really give any answers to questions they are asked.

They seem to be someone, who thinks, I'm bored, what can I ask people today and then how long can I keep asking questions, until people get fed up.

Or perhaps they run a lot of pub quizzes.

well done that man!

bery_451 wrote: »

Can you please stop all the negative trolling

...

Back to the topic...

Why pay as you go sims do not go into negative balance?

:D

Mr_Lawnmower

bery_451 wrote: »

Can you please stop all the negative trolling and get back to the topic and LOOL I never heard so much nonsense in my life that is a cardholder is using his/her own card which is fraud... LMAO

[Legal cases] are not to be decided by natural reason but by the artificial reason and judgment of law, which law is an art which requires long study and experience

Sir Edward Coke in the Case of Prohibitions [1607] EWHC KB J23, 77 ER 1342

N.B. There's an error in the BAILII text linked to above, probably from OCR - it says "law is an act..."


You're trying to do law by natural reason, intuition and a little outline knowledge. The areas of law that relate to your scenario can be deeply counter-intuitive at times, especially over what is property, as I mentioned in my previous reply.


You do not demonstrate the knowledge required to engage properly with this discussion and do not respect those posters who do. I gave you an outline legal analysis of the scenario which you countered as "nonsense" and possibly as "negative trolling".

You may benefit from reading the linked article about Coke before asserting that he, too, writes "nonsense".


Other posters have, understandably, made similar points in much blunter terms.