Capital one not refunding disputed transaction from online scam.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983770#Comment_81983770

But assuming over £100, wouldn't s32 of the CRA apply ("Contracts applying law of a country other than the UK") and thus s75 would also apply?

I further assume the OP's friend has evidence of how the goods were described and that they don't match the description. They seem to have enough to have persuaded the OP

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983974#Comment_81983974

The friend in the first paragraph who morphed into ‘I’ .

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81983974#Comment_81983974

I suspect that "the sales contract has a close connection with the United Kingdom" is the pivotal wording here - I doubt that the legislation is really intended to try to apply UK legislation to traders halfway round the world who happen to ship goods to UK (and other) consumers, but even if UK CRA could technically be asserted to apply, that would still leave considerable enforcement challenges against such traders?

However, if paying with a UK credit card, that brings s75 into play even if the governing law of the contract (and implied consumer protection legislation, etc) is outside the UK, so from the perspective of claiming against a UK financial institution, there is no requirement to establish CRA applicability…

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984114#Comment_81984114

Yeah - that's the one…

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984135#Comment_81984135

"… that would still leave considerable enforcement challenges against such traders?…"

Well yes.

But that's why you'd want to use s75 (if applicable) against your UK credit card provider rather than suing in eg China

"… so from the perspective of claiming against a UK financial institution, there is no requirement to establish CRA applicability…"

True-but if the CRA applies(and s32 CRA suuggests it can)then why not use it too?

[Apologies for above formatting - it's this blankety blank blank so-called text editor!!!!]

"I suspect that "the sales contract has a close connection with the United Kingdom" is the pivotal wording here - I doubt that the legislation is really intended to try to apply UK legislation to traders halfway round the world who happen to ship goods to UK (and other) consumers,…"

I don't know but i think @A_Geordie has addressed this before and has suggested that if a Chinese company chooses to advertise to UK consumers and chooses to sell to them, then there is a sufficiently close connection to the UK for s32 CRA to apply. And then, presumably, s75 CCA would apply(?).

But perhaps I misunderstood?

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984151#Comment_81984151

S75 only makes the creditor and retailer jointly liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The contract part would therefore be under whichever jurisdiction the sale legally fell under. There might be a claim for "misrepresentation" though if the goods apparently were materially different on the website to those supplied, obviously taking into account the £100 requirement.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984151#Comment_81984151

Yes, point taken - if the 'close connection' test can be met then it does potentially open up additional lines of attack for an s75 claim by virtue of breaches of CRA.

The suspicion remains that OP will actually have come across the retailer via an American social media platform, but if they offer sterling prices, use a .uk domain, incorporate 'London' in their trading name, quote UK contact details, etc, then these will presumably contribute to the argument that there's a close connection to the UK - obviously it would help if OP named them…

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984298#Comment_81984298

"… The contract part would therefore be under whichever jurisdiction the sale legally fell under…"

What about s32 CRA?