Help Buymobiles.net claims i owe them money.

mobilejunkie

boatman wrote: »

T-mobile have effectively defaulted by changing their t&c's to people's detriment, people then reject the new contract, as is the case with the 2013/2014 price rises.

IF so (which I doubt) it has NOTHING to do with the contract the CUSTOMER has with the DEALER. Something you can't seem to grasp.

ConsumerGuy0016

mobilejunkie wrote: »

IF so (which I doubt) it has NOTHING to do with the contract the CUSTOMER has with the DEALER. Something you can't seem to grasp.

Alright keyboard warrior, easy with the capitalisations.

The point I was making in my earlier posts is that most of these third party retailers operate very similarly. The phone is clearly not your possession from day 1 if ownership is contingent on successful completion of the contract between the network and the dealer. Something you can't seem to grasp.

boatman

The dealer, once the purchase is made is entirely dependent on the network for his payment, i would argue it is EVERYTHING to do with the network. The contract with the shop only exists because you are paying the network, you cannot look at the contracts in isolation. The shop won business for the network, the network then has to play its part, if it fails, by changing the original contract, it has a responsibility to the shop, its integral to the deal.

mobilejunkie

Obviously neither of you understands basic English law.

You can "argue" what you want; there's no point in spelling out how it actually works yet again. Water off a duck's back. I will state that another WRONG statement is regarding the phone - the customer owns it from day one and the term in the contract relating to early termination isn't affected by that. Plainly, though, you'd have to know what you're talking about to understand that.

ConsumerGuy0016

mobilejunkie wrote: »

Obviously neither of you understands basic English law.

You can "argue" what you want; there's no point in spelling out how it actually works yet again. Water off a duck's back. I will state that another WRONG statement is regarding the phone - the customer owns it from day one and the term in the contract relating to early termination isn't affected by that. Plainly, though, you'd have to know what you're talking about to understand that.

I'm still waiting for the bit where you posted a link of court transcripts that show BuyMobiles successfully claiming these unenforceable charges against buyers.

You haven't explained anything. For the OP: ignore MobileJunkie and his claims of being a legal expert.

boatman

If you were given a free coffee machine by Debenhams(supplied by Kenco) on the agreement that you then had to buy a certain amount of coffee for 2 years from Kenco, than Kenco increased the price by 30% for the coffee halfway through, would you not feel that that is unfair?
English civil law is based on case law, previous cases with similar circumstances to give a consistent result.

mobilejunkie

ConsumerGuy0016 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the bit where you posted a link of court transcripts that show BuyMobiles successfully claiming these unenforceable charges against buyers.

You haven't explained anything. For the OP: ignore MobileJunkie and his claims of being a legal expert.

Your advice is as misleading as your username.

mobilejunkie

boatman wrote: »

If you were given a free coffee machine by Debenhams(supplied by Kenco) on the agreement that you then had to buy a certain amount of coffee for 2 years from Kenco, than Kenco increased the price by 30% for the coffee halfway through, would you not feel that that is unfair?
English civil law is based on case law, previous cases with similar circumstances to give a consistent result.

Case law is only relevant when a decision is made on exactly the same circumstances in a higher court. It is irrelevant here.

Your example would depend on the t&c of the contract you have with each party. A court may or may not decide a term is unfair; it is a matter of detail and opinion. Personally, I'd rather not test such a principle in court unless I was very sure of my ground - and I have sued various organisations including more than one mobile phone dealer. I always win and have legal qualifications so I would like to think I know what I'm doing.

ConsumerGuy0016

mobilejunkie wrote: »

A court may or may not decide a term is unfair; it is a matter of detail and opinion. Personally, I'd rather not test such a principle in court unless I was very sure of my ground

"it is a matter of detail and opinion" "a court may or may not decide" - lots of hypotheticals here yet you give your advice on this forum as if it is fact?

Personally, I'd rather not test such a principle in court unless I was very sure of my ground

Ahh, so you are spineless and feel everyone else should be equally as submissive.

It's clear here that BuyMobiles are being unreasonable, so I would advise the OP that given the amount of money at stake it's worth contesting the charges instead of doing a MobileJunkie and paying up in deference.

boatman

It would appear that most people in this thread who have been affected have completed the contract, either by paying the requested amount or the contract has been terminated by actions out of their control, in both cases, the network has taken money, some of which should have gone to the shop, it would appear they have failed to provide the correct amount. As has been said if buymobiles want to take it to court its up to them but i don't think they would get a thing.

mobilejunkie wrote: »

IF so (which I doubt)

Definitely no IF's about it. There is a whole thread on here where numerous cases have been won through CISAS, there is no doubt that T-Mobile breached the contract when they increased the prices in 2013/14.