Is this even legal?

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I think I agree that "apportioned" does not necessarily mean "proportionately".

In fact I'd suggest that in the actual wording quoted from 7.6 - "... any refund due to you will be apportioned between a new Gift Card or eGift Card and the other method of payment you used until [my emphasis] the initial payment amount is reached..." the use of the word "until" and the ordering of the wording (gift card referred to first followed by the other method of payment) suggests that the gift card can be refunded first. 

Having said that, the wording isn't really clear.

In which case the doctrine of Contra Proferentem applies ... the interpretation that most benefits the party who did not write the term shall apply.

Sorry - now I'm guilty of not expressing myself very clearly!

I think the meaning of the wording quoted from 7.6 is clear, (that the retailer is entitled to refund against the gift card first) but that it could have been better phrased to make it even more so.

(FWIW, as soon as I read Aylesbury_Duck's conclusion,  "So they should have refunded your £111 in proportion...", I thought to myself that that was not what the quote from 7.6 implied, and that they could refund the gift card first).

Aylesbury_Duck

It's an interesting discussion but I wonder if OP will consider our deliberations, ahem, charming? 

sandygwynn

Thanks everyone for the advice - lesson learnt! 😊

Manxman_in_exile

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It's an interesting discussion but I wonder if OP will consider our deliberations, ahem, charming? 

Well they seem happy from the

(Or are they blushing?)