Expired gift voucher - any chance of an extension?

RefluentBeans

motorman99 said:

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. 

But you do know - you didn’t buy the gift voucher. It’s that simple. Without being involved in the contract you’re a third party and you can’t claim for yourself. The court would’ve thrown it out unless you can prove you are a party to the contract. 

To put it a different way - my neighbour is in Band B of their council tax whilst everyone else isn’t he street has Band A, and his house is identical to mine. I can’t claim his money just because ‘it’s unjust’ - I am a third party to the proceedings. 

Person A can buy a gift card for Asda and give it to Person B - but Person B and Asda have no contractual relationship and this Person B cannot claim a breach in contract. This takes away any of the questions of if the lawsuit was legally valid in terms of argument - you had no standing, as you were not a party to that contract. 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

Person A can buy a gift card for Asda and give it to Person B - but Person B and Asda have no contractual relationship and this Person B cannot claim a breach in contract. This takes away any of the questions of if the lawsuit was legally valid in terms of argument - you had no standing, as you were not a party to that contract. 

There is an exception to that rule, if the gift card is allowed to be assigned to the holder, then the holder can seek legal redress.

Some car warranties work that way, there are attached to the car, not to the person that first bought it. So the current owner can seek repair under a warranty they never bought.

RefluentBeans

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

Person A can buy a gift card for Asda and give it to Person B - but Person B and Asda have no contractual relationship and this Person B cannot claim a breach in contract. This takes away any of the questions of if the lawsuit was legally valid in terms of argument - you had no standing, as you were not a party to that contract. 

There is an exception to that rule, if the gift card is allowed to be assigned to the holder, then the holder can seek legal redress.

Some car warranties work that way, there are attached to the car, not to the person that first bought it. So the current owner can seek repair under a warranty they never bought.

Only if the specific terms allow it - the issue is gift cards have very basic terms. 

HillStreetBlues

RefluentBeans said:

HillStreetBlues said:

RefluentBeans said:

Person A can buy a gift card for Asda and give it to Person B - but Person B and Asda have no contractual relationship and this Person B cannot claim a breach in contract. This takes away any of the questions of if the lawsuit was legally valid in terms of argument - you had no standing, as you were not a party to that contract. 

There is an exception to that rule, if the gift card is allowed to be assigned to the holder, then the holder can seek legal redress.

Some car warranties work that way, there are attached to the car, not to the person that first bought it. So the current owner can seek repair under a warranty they never bought.

Only if the specific terms allow it - the issue is gift cards have very basic terms. 

I don't disagree with that.

motorman99

Well, at the end of the day, I got the voucher, the retailer got the money.
no one was in front, no one was behind (financially)
and that’s how it should be, and how it turned out.
which was fair all round. 

In hindsight I probably should have put the claim in as ‘my wife AND HER SON v the range’
which is very likely a good strategy for anyone else if they want to try it. 

And I don’t know if you missed it in a previous post, but I do sincerely believe that frivolous, unfair or spurious claims are unethical 
but I don’t think this was one. They took the money and wanted to keep it, and I didn’t want them to

as an aside, on the phone when I first asked cs to reinstate the card, I even offered for them to reinstate to half value as it was out of date. The girl was quite rude on the phone, said basically no chance, tough, and wouldn’t let me speak to a supervisor.