Section 75 help

eskbanker

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Aren't those case references more connected with the argument that S75 shouldn't apply to overseas transactions, as opposed to transactions via an agent - or did I miss something?

Agreed that the foreign transaction aspect does seem to be the primary focus, but there is also reference to four-party versus three-party scenarios, which might explain the wording in the indirect relationships section of the MSE s75 article quoted in the OP.

It's pretty heavy reading though and it's entirely plausible that there was another landmark s75 case heard at the Court of Appeal in 2006, so happy to be corrected if anyone has a more pertinent link!

antrobus

eskbanker wrote: »

I believe that https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071031/lloyds-1.htm is the case referred to.

https://brodies.com/binformed/legal-updates/latest-section-75-decision includes some analysis in slightly less opaque language....

I'm not sure it is.

The case Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v. Lloyds TSB Bank plc and others (Appellants) and others (Respondents); is when the House of Lords decided on the application of s75 to overseas supply transactions in 2007.

The OP refers to a Court of Appeal decision in 2006 on transactions through intermediaries.

winchman

I am looking for any section 75 case law

chattychappy

OP: take a look at this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5741859/section-75-chargeback-claim-query

Although the facts are a bit different, the OP in that thread did get a positive outcome.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Aren't those case references more connected with the argument that S75 shouldn't apply to overseas transactions, as opposed to transactions via an agent - or did I miss something?

I comment on the case in the thread.

Terry_Towelling

Interesting. Isn't a 3-party agreement one where the card issuer is also the merchant acquirer? - definitely no argument over applicability of S75 there - but a 4-party agreement is one where the issuer and acquirer are separate banks and that is what the rulings are alluding to?

A travel agent would indeed be one of the parties to any agreement but, by taking and processing the booking, have they not discharged their part of the contract? Or, could it be inferred that by taking a booking and passing it on to other parties for fulfilment (e.g. an airline, cruise line, hotel etc) they have in effect chosen to 'sub-contract' the booking and, under contract law, that makes them liable for failures by the sub-contractor? If that is the case, then presumably S75 should indeed be regarded as applicable.

winchman

Thanks I am going to set aside a day later this week and have good look
Whilst I don't expect a full refund I expect something back as the ship stank and cabin bath room flooded with sewage several times

MEM62

bris wrote: »

If you stayed on the cruise for it's duration you are not entitled to a refund anyway so you can forget about that.

Getting off may have been difficult :rotfl:

winchman

bris wrote: »

If you stayed on the cruise for it's duration you are not entitled to a refund anyway so you can forget about that.

Not looking for a full refund just some reduction in the total bill, if you told me up front the ship had sewage system issues we wouldn't have booked it well who would?