Buying phones from abroad?

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

The fact remains that s75 is just a legal loophole that customers take advantage off. It was born long time ago when CCs don't exist and for credits given specially to buy some specific goods that the lender knew about before giving the loan.

Grumbler, you have written an excellent summary of Section 75, and I agree in particular with the above paragraph.

Therefore are several scenarios with Section 75:

1. Card holder claims under Section 75, and card issuer charges back amount to the merchant, meaning the merchant takes the hit.
2. Card holder claims under Section 75, and card issuer takes the loss because the merchant has gone out of business.
3. Card holder claims under Section 75 and also the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and card issuer takes the loss because the merchant is outside the UK and not subject to UK legislation.
4. Card holder claims under Section 75 and also the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and card issuer charges the amount back to the merchant, meaning that the merchant takes the hit. There might be something in Visa, MasterCard and American Express rules saying that if the card issuer legally has to refund the card holder, then the card issuer can charge back the loss to the merchant (I'm guessing here).

Scenario 1 is ideal because the merchant takes the hit for its own failure. Scenario 2 is an unfortunate consequence of the modern application of this legislation. With regard to scenarios 3 and 4, it's not clear which one would prevail.

grumbler

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I didn't say it was logical or natural. Like much English Law, it may be neither. It simply IS, however - logical and/or natural or not

Sure, but you tried to justify the nonsensical and stupid law.

The transport analogy is completely misplaced: the provider has no liabilty or control over what a passenger does at the end of the journey, so their responsibility ends there. The credit card, however, can only be used at this point to complete the transactions AND, in fact, the provider DOES have control of it - they don't have to authorise it.

I guess you mean "do".
They can stop a transaction, but only on security grounds. Then they will allow it after the checks and your confirmation.
They can also have some blanket exclusions, e.g. gambling.

At this point their control ends. They can't stop you from buying some rubbish old car from a garage and insist on you buying a nearly/new one.

You mention loans. They DO make the provider liable under section 75 if taken out at the point of sale to facilitate the purchase. I should know I've sold enough of them AND, like the credit cards, it is used as a very strong selling point for buying on credit.

I specifically said "loans paid to current accounts".
Unlike mortgages or car finance they are excluded from s75 despite generating fees and facilitating purchases.

grumbler

NFH wrote: »

Therefore are several scenarios with Section 75:
Card holder claims under Section 75, and card issuer charges back amount to the merchant, meaning the merchant takes the hit.

In this case s75 isn't needed. Cardholder can claim chargeback directly.

ETA: in some cases the cardholder can claim consequentiall losses or damages as well from the CC company under s75. If so, the amount CC company pays can be bigger than the one recoverable by chargeback from the merchant.

2. Card holder claims under Section 75, and card issuer takes the loss because the merchant has gone out of business.

3. Card holder claims under Section 75 and also the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and card issuer takes the loss because the merchant is outside the UK and not subject to UK legislation.

Yes, that's what I call illogical/absurd/...

Card holder claims under Section 75 and also the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and card issuer charges the amount back to the merchant, meaning that the merchant takes the hit. There might be something in Visa, MasterCard and American Express rules saying that if the card issuer legally has to refund the card holder, then the card issuer can charge back the loss to the merchant (I'm guessing here).

I am pretty sure there is no anything like this in the rules that cover just most basic cases like non-delivery, not as described, faulty when delivered, damaged etc. I'd be surprised if this 'something' existed merely to cover UK CC companies suffering from some relic stupid law unique for UK only.

sleepysocks

Wow thanks so much for all your feedback everyone - especially in regards to warranty/sales of goods issues.

I can't seem to find what band the US Note 5 uses so I think getting one of these damn things is a lost cause