SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

eskbanker

So the rationale on the substantive points is:

He argued that the terms of his agreement were that he would get a physical copy of the magazine every month but a letter from Saga on October 21, 2002, did not mention a specific format. Neither Saga nor Ahmed were able to find the original terms and conditions of the agreement that he would have signed up to when he subscribed.

Ahmed said: “In 2002 [hard copy] was the only option available so, yes, I agreed to that.”
Dan Whitehouse, the news business and partnerships director at Saga, told the court that the agreement had been open-ended to allow the company to explore other formats in the future, as other publishers have done. Legal counsel for Saga, the barrister Ted Cunningham, told deputy district judge Mark Martynski: “There was no express term in the contract that he receive hard copies of the magazine in the post.””

“Judge Martynski sided with Saga, saying there was no explicit promise in the contract that Ahmed would receive hard copies of the magazine. He said there had been, however, a concrete promise that Ahmed would get the magazine in some form: “I don’t think the word ‘receive’ necessarily means for the terms of this contract ‘put into Mr Ahmed’s hands’. As long as he can access that magazine via a different method, it seems that is tantamount to him receiving the magazine,” Martynski ruled.

which effectively summarises much of the debate about the core issue during the previous 34 pages of this thread.

As above though, other courts may interpret this differently, for anyone inclined to try, although the fact that Saga were offering NDA-protected settlements (equivalent to 25 years of print copies) is likely to have influenced less persistent complainants…

Doc_N

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82034018#Comment_82034018

Yes - one wonders how many settled for a NDA plus £750! I seem to recall someone on one of these threads hinting as much some time ago.

lincroft1710

Is there any relevance to the case in the fact that the 77 year old plaintiff has 3 children?

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82034584#Comment_82034584

I wouldn't have thought so. Probably just typical lazy reporting. I'm pleasantly surprised they didn't probe into his heritage, given the gentleman's name. "Where are you really from" is another journalism trope seen far too often when it adds nothing to the story. Partner's age and house value are other examples.

Doc_N

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82034584#Comment_82034584

Not really, but there’s a nice little twist at the end:

His three sons, he said, were only “dimly aware” of the trial but possibly the biggest victory has been winning round his partner of 21 years. “She wasn’t supportive initially — she thought I was bonkers,” he said. But when she heard about the verdict, Ahmed said she told him: ‘‘I am on your side.”

“After all this time, I was really glad about that.”

Ergates

Gosh, what an absurd waste of money and time.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82035381#Comment_82035381

Principles can work out expensive.

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82035484#Comment_82035484

Especially when you choose to spend them on frivilous matters.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82035489#Comment_82035489

Lucky person to have a understand partner. MIne would be digging a hole for me blowing that much money

screech_78

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82035381#Comment_82035381

Completely agree. I have no sympathy for anyone spending 20 grand because a magazine they signed up to 25 years ago has stopped sending them a paper copy. It’s one of the most bizarre things I’ve read on here.