£7,000 chargeback denied

Manxman_in_exile

So even if the contract is governed by the law of the state of Delaware (for example) and under their law there has been no breach or misrepresentation, you are saying that s75 still gives protection as if the contract had been governed by UK law, rather than another completely different jurisdiction?  So that if under UK law there would have been a breach or misrepresentation, the OP has a s75 remedy even though under the law actually governing the contract there has been NO breach or misrepresentation?

I thought the whole point of s75 was that it gave the purchaser the same remedy against the credit provider as they would have under the contract (or statutory protection) against the seller.  If the purchaser has no UK legal remedy against the seller (because the applicable law is in a non-UK jurisdiction), how do they have a remedy against the bank?

Or have I misunderstood?

EDIT:  Or are you just(!) saying your bank (the one you work for?) goes over and above its legal obligations?  We'd all like to know that bank!

born_again

Want to get me sacked....
So no way is who I work for available.

I do not get the issue.
The bank is jointly liable under s75 if breach of contract or misrepresentation has happened. So you are looking at the companies T/C for a breach or the company has misrepresented themself.

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

So you apply the CRA,for example to purchases from the USA despite those laws clearly not applying?

No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.

So no matter where it is in the world, these are just the same.

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

So you are saying that your bank would honour a s75 claim if what happened would have been a breach under UK contract law (or statutory consumer rights*) even if the transaction was covered by the law of another jurisdiction and within that jurisdiction what happened would not be a breach?

EDIT:  eg Contract law in other countries may give a range of remedies that differ from those available under UK law.  Which remedies would your bank give in those circumstances - the UK ones or the other country's?  What court would enforce it?  Are you sure your bank isn't just doing more than it's obliged to do?

*It's even more unlikely with consumer rights because I'm sure consumer protection under US law is a lot weaker that under UK law.

CKhalvashi

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

So you apply the CRA,for example to purchases from the USA despite those laws clearly not applying?

No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.

So no matter where it is in the world, these are just the same.

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

So you are saying that your bank would honour a s75 claim if what happened would have been a breach under UK contract law (or statutory consumer rights*) even if the transaction was covered by the law of another jurisdiction and within that jurisdiction what happened would not be a breach?

*It's even more unlikely with consumer rights because I'm sure consumer protection under US law is a lot weaker that under UK law.

My CC issuer last year attempted to stop a refund on the basis that the (by this stage cancelled) flight wasn't covered under EU law (Georgia-Ukraine on a Ukrainian airline). Sending them a copy of the local legislation in Ukraine (which I helpfully translated for them) put a stop to that very quickly.

The helpfulness of S75 IMO is that it gives a UK-based company to take to court. All other rights remain the same.

Manxman_in_exile

CKhalvashi said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

So you apply the CRA,for example to purchases from the USA despite those laws clearly not applying?

No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.

So no matter where it is in the world, these are just the same.

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

So you are saying that your bank would honour a s75 claim if what happened would have been a breach under UK contract law (or statutory consumer rights*) even if the transaction was covered by the law of another jurisdiction and within that jurisdiction what happened would not be a breach?

*It's even more unlikely with consumer rights because I'm sure consumer protection under US law is a lot weaker that under UK law.

My CC issuer last year attempted to stop a refund on the basis that the (by this stage cancelled) flight wasn't covered under EU law (Georgia-Ukraine on a Ukrainian airline). Sending them a copy of the local legislation in Ukraine (which I helpfully translated for them) put a stop to that very quickly.

The helpfulness of S75 IMO is that it gives a UK-based company to take to court. All other rights remain the same.

But presumably that succeeded because the local legislation you provided showed that it was a breach of that local legislation?  So if you hadn't been able to show it was a breach under local Georgian or Ukrainian law, your bank would not have paid out.  That's the point I'm trying to make - not where there has been a breach of local laws but where there hasn't.   (Perhaps born_again's bank would have paid out anyway)

CKhalvashi

Manxman_in_exile said:

CKhalvashi said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

So you apply the CRA,for example to purchases from the USA despite those laws clearly not applying?

No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.

So no matter where it is in the world, these are just the same.

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

So you are saying that your bank would honour a s75 claim if what happened would have been a breach under UK contract law (or statutory consumer rights*) even if the transaction was covered by the law of another jurisdiction and within that jurisdiction what happened would not be a breach?

*It's even more unlikely with consumer rights because I'm sure consumer protection under US law is a lot weaker that under UK law.

My CC issuer last year attempted to stop a refund on the basis that the (by this stage cancelled) flight wasn't covered under EU law (Georgia-Ukraine on a Ukrainian airline). Sending them a copy of the local legislation in Ukraine (which I helpfully translated for them) put a stop to that very quickly.

The helpfulness of S75 IMO is that it gives a UK-based company to take to court. All other rights remain the same.

But presumably that succeeded because the local legislation you provided showed that it was a breach of that local legislation?  So if you hadn't been able to show it was a breach under local Georgian or Ukrainian law, your bank would not have paid out.  That's the point I'm trying to make - not where there has been a breach of local laws but where there hasn't.   (Perhaps born_again's bank would have paid out anyway)

Yes, we agree fully on how it should be implemented.

If you want the full story, I sent a covering letter with the original S75 claim (via e-mail) that Ukrainian law virtually mirrors EC261 and that no compensation was being claimed due to more than 2 weeks notice being given, Georgia's borders being closed to Ukrainian citizens at the time and therefore no point in the flight operating as traffic on a Batumi-Zaporizhia flight will be 90% Ukrainians returning home, probably with the occasional idiots like us trying to get on the worlds last Antonov 140 in airline service up to Minsk (which was another flight that had been cancelled but a refund was forthcoming, probably as the operator of this flight is a tiny airline).

When this came back as rejected, I saved as a PDF the page from the Ukrainian regulator's website and self-translated from Ukrainian to English for them. On this basis, the claim was accepted. Whether they verified my translation or not I'm not sure, however the application in this case was local rights under Ukrainian law, paired with S75 under British law.

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

One last time.

Retailer has their OWN T/C.
If they breach them, then there is a S75 case.. So it does not matter where in the world they come from... 

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Eh?  What may be a breach of contract here in the UK may not be a breach in the US, Brazil, Russia, China or Timbuctu.  Not all non-common law countries have contract rules the same as in the UK, so what is a breach here may not be a breach there.

One last time.

Retailer has their OWN T/C.
If they breach them, then there is a S75 case.. So it does not matter where in the world they come from... 

I think we must be talking at cross-purposes or I'm not making my point very clearly.  Sorry if that is the case. - let's see if I can do better...

From my point of view it does matter which country's laws govern the contract in question.  Contract law can differ from one country to another depending on, for example, whether both countries come from a common law tradition or from a civil law tradition - and it can even differ from country to country within each of those respective legal systems.

Yesterday, in answer to the question:  "So you apply the CRA,for example to purchases from the USA despite those laws clearly not applying?",    you responded:  "No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.  So no matter where it is in the world,  these are just the same [my emphasis] ", and it is this assertion that I've been querying.

To take the misrepresentation bit first, I'd be absolutely amazed if what amounts to misrepresenation under UK contract law also necessarily amounted to misrepresentation under contract law in say Delaware, or China or Timbuctu.  But, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that for the purposes of s75 it is the UK legal meaning of misrepresentation that would apply and not the other country's different meaning, even though the contract in question was unquestionably governed by the law of that other country, and not the UK?

As regards breach, of course each retailer has their OWN T&Cs, but you seem to be making the bolder claim that in the case of contracts governed under the law of another country, then what would amount to a breach of contract terms under UK law, must necessarily also amount to a breach for the purposes of s75, even if under the non-UK law governing the contract there had been no breach.  I'm sure there are jurisdictions where suppliers can have a perfectly valid defence under their local/domestic law to a breach of contract claim where that defence would not be available to them under UK law - and this might be because local common law has evolved differently from in the UK, or local statute has not given as much protection to consumers as in the UK, or local law has developed from a completely different foundation from in the UK, or for any other reason.  In that situation, I don't understand how s75 applies?

To put it simply, my understanding was (and I'm more that happy to have it pointed out to me why I'm wrong) is that s75 was meant to give the consumer the same basis of claim or remedy against a bank or finance company as the consumer would have against the retailer.  What I don't understand is how a consumer can have any claim under s75 if the retailer can simply say: "Ha ha.  You have no claim against me because our contract is governed by Delaware/Chinese/Timbuctu law, and under the law of that state/country I have not made any misrepresentation and neither have I breached the contract because... "  So if the consumer has no claim under the non-UK law governing the contract in question, how do they suddenly have a claim in UK law under s75?.  You seem to be saying that the law of the country the contract is subject to is irrelevant?

What I'm having difficulty with, I think, is the apparently sweeping generalisation that any breach of contract in one country and one jurisdiction must necessarily be a breach of contract across the whole world and in any other legal jurisdiction.  I'm finding that hard to believe. It would mean contract law was identical the world over and there would be no need to have clauses spelling out what country's law a contract was subject to.

Hopefully the above explains better what I'm getting at.  If I'm missing something obvious I'm more than happy to listen and have it pointed out to me

Sandtree

born_again said:

No S75 is based on Breach of contract or Misrepresentation.

So no matter where it is in the world, these are just the same.

Not at all, laws governing contracts, laws of limitation etc are unique to pretty much every country even within the UK I have 6 years for breach of contract in England but 5 years in Scotland. Many countries have a "bought as seen" basis whereas in the UK merchants have legal obligations of disclosure and so whats a misrepresentation in one country may not be in another etc etc etc

Manxman_in_exile

OK.  According to MSE the Court of Appeal says I'm wrong.  https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#accordion-content-1680858504-2    "Are overseas and web purchases protected?"    

I don't know if this is the C of A case referred to (does anyone else know?), but it seems to support the view that s75 applies to transactions carried out "abroad" (and subject to "foreign" law) which would not otherwise be within the English and Welsh jurisdiction.  https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/268.html&query=(s)+AND+(75)+AND+("Consumer+Credit+Act")

However, the decision doesn't seem to address the point I (and I think Sandtree) was trying to argue, that what might amount to a misrepresentation here might not do so in the "foreign" country.  So if there's no misrepresentation (or breach) under the law of the country governing the contract, why does s75 give a remedy at all?  (The only part of that judgement I could find that indirectly touches upon that is that references to a like or similar or same remedy doesn't mean that identical remedies need to be available here and overseas.

Having said all that, it looks more likely to me that I'm wrong and born_again is right.  Sorry!