Expired gift voucher - any chance of an extension?

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

Okell said:

user1977 said:

Okell said:

motorman99 said:

But registrars aren’t judges, and often see things differently…..

(I do wonder if gift vouchers etc that have an expiry date might be "unfair" under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  I'd be interested what argument sellers would put forward to show the term was fair)

They've got to expire at some point anyway under the normal laws of prescription for debts (5 or 6 years depending on the jurisdiction) - which is actually what some retailers explicitly do e.g. Tesco's gift cards expire 5 years after their last use.

They don't "have to expire" at all.  

I had some WH Smith vouchers that had no expiry date and were well over 6 years old*.

I redeemed them instore and even checked before doing so that they were still valid.  The shop assistant said that so long as they had no expiry date then they should be accepted and they were.

I think I've done the same with Boots vouchers too.

Yes, I'm not arguing that retailers are prohibited by anybody else from honouring old vouchers if they choose to do so, but they don't have a legal obligation to honour them until Doomsday.

It's the law of contract, it doesn't simply end because you want it too.

And the law of prescription applies to contracts...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/5

Yes it does but you're misunderstanding it.

Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 

If you have a gift voucher (that you bought) that has no expiry date and the retailer reject it, then you have 6 years from that date as that is when the cause of action accrued (the date of rejection).
It's not the start of the contract.

I was under the impression that indefinite contracts (with no exit clauses by the parties) are generally disfavoured by courts? It would be rather ridiculous to have a Harris’s voucher from 1850 and expect it to be still be valid, never mind that our currency has changed since then! 

Disfavoured doesn't mean disallowed.
If you feel something from 1850 would be ridiculous, how about transferable token from 1766, that must be mindblowing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67194169

The Bristol Old Vic added: "If it is indeed authentic, we will honour our policy and provide free tickets to the owner."

Paid £50 and got a token, the gift card of it's day.

Nothing in that story suggests it's legally enforceable though, just that the Old Vic are happy to honour it.

That is true, no way of knowing either way.
As you replied to another post, rather than my comment to yours I'm guessing you accept that you were wrong about how the law of prescription applies to contracts works (sometimes you have to guess as some are scared to admit to making them).

Ah, no, the relevant date is surely when it could first be redeemed i.e. the date of purchase normally - or the clock restarts whenever it is re-acknowledged (hence the Tesco policy of running from the last use). Your interpretation would suggest that any contractual obligation could lie in abeyance for decades and then suddenly be enforced.

Not any, will depend on the contact but of course they can run for many years.   999 year lease is a contract.
If someone buys a product from a manufacturer with a 20 guarantee then that becomes part of the contract,  so that could wait years until being enforced.
There is no legal time limits in contract law (feel free to try and find them).

I not sure why you are so fixated with a Tesco gift card and using that a basis of your thinking, Amazon have 10 years from issue date, and I certainly wouldn't use an Amazon gift card as my guidance to contract law. 

If neither party has been in contact with each other for a prolonged amount of time, then the court may see that contract as terminated. In the same way there are some archaic laws on the books but enforcing them would be difficult. 

. 

On what legal basis? Case law is the way to prove it.

If there are no exit clauses (which there often aren’t on the old ‘perpetual’ gift cards) then the contract is allowed to be terminated. That is very common basic law. I would advise you to actually check your facts before spouting nonsense. 

I was waiting for you to argue against yourself and glad you didn't disappoint.

To be able to terminate a contract  you must have a valid contract, so by bring up termination it's admitting there is a valid contract.

Have a look back on the thread, I never stated the contract couldn't be terminated, as I know it can be, I just waiting for someone to shoot their self in the foot.
(guess you didn't find any case law either).

So you agree that perpetual gift cards don’t form a contract and thus unenforceable. Great. Thanks for playing champ. 

That comment just makes you seems desperate and very foolish, actually it's pathetic.

Okay pal. Whatever you say. It’s clear you have very strong opinions, some of your other posts are based in facts but this one is based in opinions. Gift cards have very loose terms associated with them. If there is no way to terminate the contract (as there is no way to contact the purchasing party) then the contract cannot be perpetual - as you stated yourself. 

Small claims court decisions are not publicly searchable and there will never be a large enough case to make it into ‘proper’ court. But there are plenty of cases with perpetual contracts that the courts have sided against, including to do with land, business relations, and car parking. But (to my knowledge) there have never been any cases where the court has upheld that the contract must continue in perpetuity because it was never stated that there is an end date. If one party wants to leave a contract then there is little that the other party can do - now that doesn’t meant there isn’t a penalty to leaving the contract. But specific performance is rarely ordered by the court, and (to my knowledge) never been ordered ‘in perpetuity’. Unless you’ve got some case law of your own, which I assume you haven’t. 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans saidking them).

Okay pal. Whatever you say. It’s clear you have very strong opinions,

I do when it comes to this, as remember the first thing I was taught about contracts is, time limit them & narrow the scope as much as possible, otherwise they will end up biting you in the ****.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans saidking them).

Okay pal. Whatever you say. It’s clear you have very strong opinions,

I do when it comes to this, as remember the first thing I was taught about contracts is, time limit them & narrow the scope as much as possible, otherwise they will end up biting you in the ****.

Good job at ignoring the rest of the post. I’m not going to argue with you - but the law is not on your side. Read above for more details - enjoy your evening and hope your research bias doesn’t come back to ‘bite you in the ****’. 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

user1977 said:

Okell said:

user1977 said:

Okell said:

motorman99 said:

But registrars aren’t judges, and often see things differently…..

(I do wonder if gift vouchers etc that have an expiry date might be "unfair" under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  I'd be interested what argument sellers would put forward to show the term was fair)

They've got to expire at some point anyway under the normal laws of prescription for debts (5 or 6 years depending on the jurisdiction) - which is actually what some retailers explicitly do e.g. Tesco's gift cards expire 5 years after their last use.

They don't "have to expire" at all.  

I had some WH Smith vouchers that had no expiry date and were well over 6 years old*.

I redeemed them instore and even checked before doing so that they were still valid.  The shop assistant said that so long as they had no expiry date then they should be accepted and they were.

I think I've done the same with Boots vouchers too.

Yes, I'm not arguing that retailers are prohibited by anybody else from honouring old vouchers if they choose to do so, but they don't have a legal obligation to honour them until Doomsday.

It's the law of contract, it doesn't simply end because you want it too.

And the law of prescription applies to contracts...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/5

Yes it does but you're misunderstanding it.

Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 

If you have a gift voucher (that you bought) that has no expiry date and the retailer reject it, then you have 6 years from that date as that is when the cause of action accrued (the date of rejection).
It's not the start of the contract.

I was under the impression that indefinite contracts (with no exit clauses by the parties) are generally disfavoured by courts? It would be rather ridiculous to have a Harris’s voucher from 1850 and expect it to be still be valid, never mind that our currency has changed since then! 

Disfavoured doesn't mean disallowed.
If you feel something from 1850 would be ridiculous, how about transferable token from 1766, that must be mindblowing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67194169

The Bristol Old Vic added: "If it is indeed authentic, we will honour our policy and provide free tickets to the owner."

Paid £50 and got a token, the gift card of it's day.

Nothing in that story suggests it's legally enforceable though, just that the Old Vic are happy to honour it.

That is true, no way of knowing either way.
As you replied to another post, rather than my comment to yours I'm guessing you accept that you were wrong about how the law of prescription applies to contracts works (sometimes you have to guess as some are scared to admit to making them).

Ah, no, the relevant date is surely when it could first be redeemed i.e. the date of purchase normally - or the clock restarts whenever it is re-acknowledged (hence the Tesco policy of running from the last use). Your interpretation would suggest that any contractual obligation could lie in abeyance for decades and then suddenly be enforced.

Not any, will depend on the contact but of course they can run for many years.   999 year lease is a contract.
If someone buys a product from a manufacturer with a 20 guarantee then that becomes part of the contract,  so that could wait years until being enforced.
There is no legal time limits in contract law (feel free to try and find them).

I not sure why you are so fixated with a Tesco gift card and using that a basis of your thinking, Amazon have 10 years from issue date, and I certainly wouldn't use an Amazon gift card as my guidance to contract law. 

If neither party has been in contact with each other for a prolonged amount of time, then the court may see that contract as terminated. In the same way there are some archaic laws on the books but enforcing them would be difficult. 

. 

On what legal basis? Case law is the way to prove it.

If there are no exit clauses (which there often aren’t on the old ‘perpetual’ gift cards) then the contract is allowed to be terminated. That is very common basic law. I would advise you to actually check your facts before spouting nonsense. 

I was waiting for you to argue against yourself and glad you didn't disappoint.

To be able to terminate a contract  you must have a valid contract, so by bring up termination it's admitting there is a valid contract.

Have a look back on the thread, I never stated the contract couldn't be terminated, as I know it can be, I just waiting for someone to shoot their self in the foot.
(guess you didn't find any case law either).

So you agree that perpetual gift cards don’t form a contract and thus unenforceable. Great. Thanks for playing champ. 

That comment just makes you seems desperate and very foolish, actually it's pathetic.

Okay pal. Whatever you say. It’s clear you have very strong opinions, some of your other posts are based in facts but this one is based in opinions. Gift cards have very loose terms associated with them. If there is no way to terminate the contract (as there is no way to contact the purchasing party) then the contract cannot be perpetual - as you stated yourself. 

Small claims court decisions are not publicly searchable and there will never be a large enough case to make it into ‘proper’ court. But there are plenty of cases with perpetual contracts that the courts have sided against, including to do with land, business relations, and car parking. But (to my knowledge) there have never been any cases where the court has upheld that the contract must continue in perpetuity because it was never stated that there is an end date. If one party wants to leave a contract then there is little that the other party can do - now that doesn’t meant there isn’t a penalty to leaving the contract. But specific performance is rarely ordered by the court, and (to my knowledge) never been ordered ‘in perpetuity’. Unless you’ve got some case law of your own, which I assume you haven’t. 

They will be cases that show both sides in small claims court many aren't even defended so pointless basing any kind of viewpoint on those.

You don't need a gift voucher to go to higher court, that's not how case law works. Carlill ruling just didn't affect Smokeballs.

Exodi

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

It is a sad day to see promotion of the use of frivolous claims; exploiting the fact that many retailers will settle small claims as the cost to defend would be higher.

MSE should be ethical. If this is not explicitly covered by MSE forum rules, it should be.

@motorman99 If your defence was genuinely as you say ("[I] Said it was unconscionable that they could take money in this way and as the customer I get nothing in return, simply wrong that they can take money in this way"), I'd expect you would have got short shrift for wasting everyone's time. You're fortunate that the retailer could not be bothered to defend themselves, but don't warp this win in your head into something it wasn't. You did not win on the merit of your defence.

Well that’s hard luck on you then. The op asked what they could do and I gave them an example of what I did. 

My defence was also that the small print saying about the expiry was so small as to be impossible to read. 

I never claimed to have won on a point of law. I won because they offered to settle. It’s quite clear. 

You say MSE should be ethical…..and I agree….as long as the companies that dish out these gift vouchers are ethical too, and they are not.
I’ll bet that for every £1000 of gift vouchers they sell, not much more than £900 ever gets spent in the shop. The rest expire, get lost etc.
THATS UNETHICAL.
Not what I did 
your high horse is that way >>>>>>>>>>

Why's it hard luck on me? I don't buy gift cards, and even if I was in the situation that I received one and didn't use it before it expired, I can't say I'd waste my time indulging in such silly litigation; I'd probably just kick myself for my forgetfulness and politely ask the retailer if they'd be willing to extend it. The OP is of the same opinion "I shan't be taking them to court because it's just not worth the risk, or the time, for a £50 gift card."

I don't know why you go on to include your second point of defence about the terms being impossible to read (which is likely just as ridiculous as your first) when you already accept that you did not win on your defence, or any point of law. The retailer did not want to pay expensive fees defending themselves against your mickey mouse suit.

The last part is mostly just unfounded rambling which can be summed up with two wrongs not making a right. You and the retailer acting in bad faith are not mutually exclusive. You can spin it or justify it however you like, the simple truth is you filed a nuisance claim and won exactly how you'd expect to win from such a type of claim.

This forum should not allow the promotion of the use of nuisance claims, in any circumstances. I'm sorry if you believe that is me putting myself on a high horse. In truth I'd have reported the post without responding to it if the OP hadn't said they weren't going to do it.

motorman99

Exodi said:

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

It is a sad day to see promotion of the use of frivolous claims; exploiting the fact that many retailers will settle small claims as the cost to defend would be higher.

MSE should be ethical. If this is not explicitly covered by MSE forum rules, it should be.

@motorman99 If your defence was genuinely as you say ("[I] Said it was unconscionable that they could take money in this way and as the customer I get nothing in return, simply wrong that they can take money in this way"), I'd expect you would have got short shrift for wasting everyone's time. You're fortunate that the retailer could not be bothered to defend themselves, but don't warp this win in your head into something it wasn't. You did not win on the merit of your defence.

Well that’s hard luck on you then. The op asked what they could do and I gave them an example of what I did. 

My defence was also that the small print saying about the expiry was so small as to be impossible to read. 

I never claimed to have won on a point of law. I won because they offered to settle. It’s quite clear. 

You say MSE should be ethical…..and I agree….as long as the companies that dish out these gift vouchers are ethical too, and they are not.
I’ll bet that for every £1000 of gift vouchers they sell, not much more than £900 ever gets spent in the shop. The rest expire, get lost etc.
THATS UNETHICAL.
Not what I did 
your high horse is that way >>>>>>>>>>

Why's it hard luck on me? I don't buy gift cards, and even if I was in the situation that I received one and didn't use it before it expired, I can't say I'd waste my time indulging in such silly litigation; I'd probably just kick myself for my forgetfulness and politely ask the retailer if they'd be willing to extend it. The OP is of the same opinion "I shan't be taking them to court because it's just not worth the risk, or the time, for a £50 gift card."

I don't know why you go on to include your second point of defence about the terms being impossible to read (which is likely just as ridiculous as your first) when you already accept that you did not win on your defence, or any point of law. The retailer did not want to pay expensive fees defending themselves against your mickey mouse suit.

The last part is mostly just unfounded rambling which can be summed up with two wrongs not making a right. You and the retailer acting in bad faith are not mutually exclusive. You can spin it or justify it however you like, the simple truth is you filed a nuisance claim and won exactly how you'd expect to win from such a type of claim.

This forum should not allow the promotion of the use of nuisance claims, in any circumstances. I'm sorry if you believe that is me putting myself on a high horse. In truth I'd have reported the post without responding to it if the OP hadn't said they weren't going to do it.

I remarked that it was hard luck on you because you believe it’s unethical to try and get your money back from a shop that has taken it and given nothing in return. Yes, it was a nuisance claim. The op asked what to do, I gave an example of what I did. 

What would have happened we will never know because it was never tried. It worked for me, I got my money back. It might not work for others. 

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but….and here’s the clincher, neither me nor the retailer are ‘in front’ in any way, we are both back where we started when the voucher was purchased. 

And that seems fair to me. 

And being fair is what life’s all about. 

HillStreetBlues

@motorman99
I don't why you are calling it a nuisance claim, you said the  expiry date was too small to read and that's a valid legal strategy,
Can't say you would have won or not (size would be the issue), also it's impossible to tell why they folded, could be costs, could have been you're correct and expiry date was too small.

RefluentBeans

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

It is a sad day to see promotion of the use of frivolous claims; exploiting the fact that many retailers will settle small claims as the cost to defend would be higher.

MSE should be ethical. If this is not explicitly covered by MSE forum rules, it should be.

@motorman99 If your defence was genuinely as you say ("[I] Said it was unconscionable that they could take money in this way and as the customer I get nothing in return, simply wrong that they can take money in this way"), I'd expect you would have got short shrift for wasting everyone's time. You're fortunate that the retailer could not be bothered to defend themselves, but don't warp this win in your head into something it wasn't. You did not win on the merit of your defence.

Well that’s hard luck on you then. The op asked what they could do and I gave them an example of what I did. 

My defence was also that the small print saying about the expiry was so small as to be impossible to read. 

I never claimed to have won on a point of law. I won because they offered to settle. It’s quite clear. 

You say MSE should be ethical…..and I agree….as long as the companies that dish out these gift vouchers are ethical too, and they are not.
I’ll bet that for every £1000 of gift vouchers they sell, not much more than £900 ever gets spent in the shop. The rest expire, get lost etc.
THATS UNETHICAL.
Not what I did 
your high horse is that way >>>>>>>>>>

Why's it hard luck on me? I don't buy gift cards, and even if I was in the situation that I received one and didn't use it before it expired, I can't say I'd waste my time indulging in such silly litigation; I'd probably just kick myself for my forgetfulness and politely ask the retailer if they'd be willing to extend it. The OP is of the same opinion "I shan't be taking them to court because it's just not worth the risk, or the time, for a £50 gift card."

I don't know why you go on to include your second point of defence about the terms being impossible to read (which is likely just as ridiculous as your first) when you already accept that you did not win on your defence, or any point of law. The retailer did not want to pay expensive fees defending themselves against your mickey mouse suit.

The last part is mostly just unfounded rambling which can be summed up with two wrongs not making a right. You and the retailer acting in bad faith are not mutually exclusive. You can spin it or justify it however you like, the simple truth is you filed a nuisance claim and won exactly how you'd expect to win from such a type of claim.

This forum should not allow the promotion of the use of nuisance claims, in any circumstances. I'm sorry if you believe that is me putting myself on a high horse. In truth I'd have reported the post without responding to it if the OP hadn't said they weren't going to do it.

I remarked that it was hard luck on you because you believe it’s unethical to try and get your money back from a shop that has taken it and given nothing in return. Yes, it was a nuisance claim. The op asked what to do, I gave an example of what I did. 

What would have happened we will never know because it was never tried. It worked for me, I got my money back. It might not work for others. 

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but….and here’s the clincher, neither me nor the retailer are ‘in front’ in any way, we are both back where we started when the voucher was purchased. 

And that seems fair to me. 

And being fair is what life’s all about. 

Except, and this is the legal crux, it wasn’t your money. You are a third party to the sale. Nuisance lawsuits work - in the same way that TV licensing letters threatening to send the ‘Transmitter Van’ round works - by being small enough to the retailer that they roll their eyes and accept, and too much hassle to fight. 

They aren’t ethical, and you would have lost unless you can show how you’re a party to the contract. I assume as you didn’t pay for the gift card, you gave the refund to the person who bought it? In which case there’s at least a legal argument worth noting, otherwise it would just get thrown out in court. 

born_again

Come on folks give it a rest.
It has gone way past OP's question & into the realms of personal opinion.

motorman99

RefluentBeans said:

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

motorman99 said:

Exodi said:

It is a sad day to see promotion of the use of frivolous claims; exploiting the fact that many retailers will settle small claims as the cost to defend would be higher.

MSE should be ethical. If this is not explicitly covered by MSE forum rules, it should be.

@motorman99 If your defence was genuinely as you say ("[I] Said it was unconscionable that they could take money in this way and as the customer I get nothing in return, simply wrong that they can take money in this way"), I'd expect you would have got short shrift for wasting everyone's time. You're fortunate that the retailer could not be bothered to defend themselves, but don't warp this win in your head into something it wasn't. You did not win on the merit of your defence.

Well that’s hard luck on you then. The op asked what they could do and I gave them an example of what I did. 

My defence was also that the small print saying about the expiry was so small as to be impossible to read. 

I never claimed to have won on a point of law. I won because they offered to settle. It’s quite clear. 

You say MSE should be ethical…..and I agree….as long as the companies that dish out these gift vouchers are ethical too, and they are not.
I’ll bet that for every £1000 of gift vouchers they sell, not much more than £900 ever gets spent in the shop. The rest expire, get lost etc.
THATS UNETHICAL.
Not what I did 
your high horse is that way >>>>>>>>>>

Why's it hard luck on me? I don't buy gift cards, and even if I was in the situation that I received one and didn't use it before it expired, I can't say I'd waste my time indulging in such silly litigation; I'd probably just kick myself for my forgetfulness and politely ask the retailer if they'd be willing to extend it. The OP is of the same opinion "I shan't be taking them to court because it's just not worth the risk, or the time, for a £50 gift card."

I don't know why you go on to include your second point of defence about the terms being impossible to read (which is likely just as ridiculous as your first) when you already accept that you did not win on your defence, or any point of law. The retailer did not want to pay expensive fees defending themselves against your mickey mouse suit.

The last part is mostly just unfounded rambling which can be summed up with two wrongs not making a right. You and the retailer acting in bad faith are not mutually exclusive. You can spin it or justify it however you like, the simple truth is you filed a nuisance claim and won exactly how you'd expect to win from such a type of claim.

This forum should not allow the promotion of the use of nuisance claims, in any circumstances. I'm sorry if you believe that is me putting myself on a high horse. In truth I'd have reported the post without responding to it if the OP hadn't said they weren't going to do it.

I remarked that it was hard luck on you because you believe it’s unethical to try and get your money back from a shop that has taken it and given nothing in return. Yes, it was a nuisance claim. The op asked what to do, I gave an example of what I did. 

What would have happened we will never know because it was never tried. It worked for me, I got my money back. It might not work for others. 

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but….and here’s the clincher, neither me nor the retailer are ‘in front’ in any way, we are both back where we started when the voucher was purchased. 

And that seems fair to me. 

And being fair is what life’s all about. 

Except, and this is the legal crux, it wasn’t your money. You are a third party to the sale. Nuisance lawsuits work - in the same way that TV licensing letters threatening to send the ‘Transmitter Van’ round works - by being small enough to the retailer that they roll their eyes and accept, and too much hassle to fight. 

They aren’t ethical, and you would have lost unless you can show how you’re a party to the contract. I assume as you didn’t pay for the gift card, you gave the refund to the person who bought it? In which case there’s at least a legal argument worth noting, otherwise it would just get thrown out in court. 

But in this case we just don’t know because it was never tried. You may well be right and it would have failed. I don’t know, I don’t care, the retailer and I are now back in the position we were when they took the money and we got the voucher. 

Which is fair….do tell if you think why that in particular is not fair. 

The op asked what they could do, I told them what I did which worked. 

It might have worked for them, it might not. 

I don’t know 
and nor do you. 

Btw spurious lawsuits for stubbing your toe and claiming £10,000 ARE indeed unethical….and more commonplace, sadly. 

But this isn’t like that. Everyone’s even, that’s how it should be, fair.