Axqi Rqvst

On 5/6/03 3:46 PM, in article
[email protected], "Anonymous via the
Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote:

    > Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    > someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?

Not unless it's in the contract. As it is for car hire contracts to pay for
parking tickets.

nightjar

"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:a7c29471b8ae667273286a3d47aa976...raffickers.com...
...
    > What if you were unable to return on the booked return journey for
    > reasons beyond your control? (illness, car accident)

That is what travel insurance is for.

Colin Bignell

nightjar

"Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
    > >> * Could they legally (in the UK) charge my credit card for the
    > >> difference, or would they have to sue me for it?
    > >
    > > If you have paid with a credit card, charging the debt to the card would
    > > be the usual way to recover it.
    > Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    > someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?

Charging the fare to the credit card authorises Eurotunnel to make a
deduction of the amount of the fare. If you travel outside the 'travel
validity' (as it is put in the terms and conditions) of the trip booked then
the fare payable is the one applicable to the trip actually made. Thus, the
extra charge (and, in some cases, an amendment fee) has been authorised by
the original instruction to charge the fare to the card.

Colin Bignell

nightjar

wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article , nightjar ()
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > "A.Melon" wrote in message
    > > news:8ad9bdb5fb453d114954ef61ea5b75d...raffickers.com...
    > > > * Is this an 'unfair contract term' which would be invalid?
    > >
    > > I doubt it, as you would be in breach of the conditions of the contract
    > > you
    > > have entered into with the company, that you would make both trips
    > > within a
    > > particular period.
    > The question is whether that is an unfair condition, in which case
    > Eurotunnel cannot enforce it.

Which essentially comes down to the question 'is it unfair that you be
required to pay the fare for the trip you actually make, rather than for the
one you claim you plan to make when you order the ticket if you don't make
that trip?'. IMO, that is not an unfair condition, but IANAL.

Colin Bignell

666_

In article ,
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer >> * Could they legally (in the UK) charge my credit card for the
    > >> difference, or would they have to sue me for it?
    > >
    > > If you have paid with a credit card, charging the debt to the card would
    > > be the usual way to recover it.
    >
    > Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    > someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?

In this case it isn't an "unauthorised charge".

barney

In article , nightjar ()
wrote:

    > wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The question is whether that is an unfair condition, in which case
    > > Eurotunnel cannot enforce it.
    >
    > Which essentially comes down to the question 'is it unfair that you be
    > required to pay the fare for the trip you actually make, rather than
    > for the
    > one you claim you plan to make when you order the ticket if you don't
    > make
    > that trip?'. IMO, that is not an unfair condition, but IANAL.

I'm inclined to agree with you (after pursuing this question into realms
of thought so tortuous my head still hurts).

ISTM that Eurotunnel can argue they did not sell the customer two trips,
of which he chose not to take one, but sold him only one trip; and he then
unilaterally decided to take a different trip. The fact that the different
trip was identical to a portion of the originally-purchased trip may be a
red herring. This is more or less what you're saying, right?

Devil

On Tue, 06 May 2003 17:39:38 +0100, nightja wrote:

    >
    > "A.Melon" wrote in message
    > news:a7c29471b8ae667273286a3d47aa976...raffickers.com...
    > ...
    >> What if you were unable to return on the booked return journey for
    >> reasons beyond your control? (illness, car accident)
    >
    > That is what travel insurance is for.

That does not answer the question as to whether the thing was ever tested
in court.

Devil

On Tue, 06 May 2003 17:51:59 +0100, nightja wrote:

    >
    > "Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" wrote
    > in message news:[email protected]...
    >> >> * Could they legally (in the UK) charge my credit card for the
    >> >> difference, or would they have to sue me for it?
    >> >
    >> > If you have paid with a credit card, charging the debt to the card would
    >> > be the usual way to recover it.
    >> Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    >> someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?
    >
    > Charging the fare to the credit card authorises Eurotunnel to make a
    > deduction of the amount of the fare. If you travel outside the 'travel
    > validity' (as it is put in the terms and conditions) of the trip booked then
    > the fare payable is the one applicable to the trip actually made. Thus, the
    > extra charge (and, in some cases, an amendment fee) has been authorised by
    > the original instruction to charge the fare to the card.

I don't believe I have ever authorized a credit card to pay anything but a
*given amount.* I.e. the fare as paid at the time of the charge. Except
when the card provides a guarantee, which this deal would not seem to
require; even then, they can't arbitrarily go add stuff.

Credit card charges are not contracts.

nightjar

wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article , nightjar ()
    > wrote:
    > > wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > The question is whether that is an unfair condition, in which case
    > > > Eurotunnel cannot enforce it.
    > >
    > > Which essentially comes down to the question 'is it unfair that you be
    > > required to pay the fare for the trip you actually make, rather than
    > > for the
    > > one you claim you plan to make when you order the ticket if you don't
    > > make
    > > that trip?'. IMO, that is not an unfair condition, but IANAL.
    > I'm inclined to agree with you (after pursuing this question into realms
    > of thought so tortuous my head still hurts).
    > ISTM that Eurotunnel can argue they did not sell the customer two trips,
    > of which he chose not to take one, but sold him only one trip; and he then
    > unilaterally decided to take a different trip. The fact that the different
    > trip was identical to a portion of the originally-purchased trip may be a
    > red herring. This is more or less what you're saying, right?

That would seem to be a fair summary.

Colin Bignell

nightjar

"devil" wrote in message
news[email protected]...
...
    > I don't believe I have ever authorized a credit card to pay anything but a
    > *given amount.* I.e. the fare as paid at the time of the charge. Except
    > when the card provides a guarantee, which this deal would not seem to
    > require; even then, they can't arbitrarily go add stuff.

When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
(c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).

Colin Bignell

A . Melon

    >> I'm inclined to agree with you (after pursuing this question into realms
    >> of thought so tortuous my head still hurts).
    >> ISTM that Eurotunnel can argue they did not sell the customer two trips,
    >> of which he chose not to take one, but sold him only one trip; and he
    >> then unilaterally decided to take a different trip. The fact that the
    >> different trip was identical to a portion of the originally-purchased
    >> trip may be a red herring. This is more or less what you're saying,
    >> right?
    >
    > That would seem to be a fair summary.

Here's an analogy. If you placed an order for a set of something to be
sent in two shipments, paid for the whole set, and told them to cancel
the second shipment after you'd received the first, the company would
have no grounds for demanding more money from you. So why should
Eurotunnel be able to get away with doing just that?

I know you're stating what you believe to be the legal facts here. But
I'm curious -- do you think they should be allowed to operate and
enforce this offensive pricing structure? Or should consumer groups
put pressure on the DTI to do something about it?

Nomen Nescio

    > ...
    >> What if you were unable to return on the booked return journey for
    >> reasons beyond your control? (illness, car accident)
    >
    > That is what travel insurance is for.

Wouldn't the company have to demonstrate that the customer's failure
to return on the scheduled trip had caused it a loss, relative to the
company's costs of carrying out the day return contract (not relative
to the price of a longer return ticket), in order to claim damages?

Bigbrian

On Wed, 7 May 2003 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT), A.Melon
wrote:

    >>> I'm inclined to agree with you (after pursuing this question into realms
    >>> of thought so tortuous my head still hurts).
    >>> ISTM that Eurotunnel can argue they did not sell the customer two trips,
    >>> of which he chose not to take one, but sold him only one trip; and he
    >>> then unilaterally decided to take a different trip. The fact that the
    >>> different trip was identical to a portion of the originally-purchased
    >>> trip may be a red herring. This is more or less what you're saying,
    >>> right?
    >>
    >> That would seem to be a fair summary.
    >Here's an analogy. If you placed an order for a set of something to be
    >sent in two shipments, paid for the whole set, and told them to cancel
    >the second shipment after you'd received the first, the company would
    >have no grounds for demanding more money from you. So why should
    >Eurotunnel be able to get away with doing just that?

Wrong analogy. Its a quirk of travel costs that sometimes returns are
cheaper than one way fares. The return ticket is a different product
from two one way tickets to the same destination, not two lots of the
same product. If you bought a one way ticket to somewhere, and then
when you got there you found you needed to come back, and had to buy a
one way ticket that way too, would you be insisting that the airline
or whoever sold you the second one way ticket at a price, which might
even be negative, that made the total cost the same as if you'd
bought the return initially? Good luck if you ever try that.

In your part shipment analogy, a better example would be a combined
offer of, say, buy 3 lots of A for £5 each, and we'll send you B as
well, normal price £20, free of charge. If you receive B first, and
then phone to cancel the rest of order, would you expect not to be
charged the full value of B? The manufacturers of A may well be
subsidising the gift in order to get greater market penentration for
their own product, which fails if its never shipped.

Brian

Greg Byshenk

A.Melon wrote:

    > Here's an analogy. If you placed an order for a set of something to be
    > sent in two shipments, paid for the whole set, and told them to cancel
    > the second shipment after you'd received the first, the company would
    > have no grounds for demanding more money from you. So why should
    > Eurotunnel be able to get away with doing just that?

It depends on the conditions you agreed to. If your contract for the
sale included a penalty for failing to take delivery of the whole order,
then there would indeed be grounds for demanding additional payment.
I suspect that such would not often be the case for tangible items, but
I can imagine some situations (items with high storage or disposal costs
and limited opportunity for alternative sale, for example) where such
might be the case.


    > I know you're stating what you believe to be the legal facts here. But
    > I'm curious -- do you think they should be allowed to operate and
    > enforce this offensive pricing structure? Or should consumer groups
    > put pressure on the DTI to do something about it?

If you want to oppose it, then you should at least present a cogent
argument as to what specifically is wrong with it.

To the best of my knowlege, the applicable conditions are clearly
presented to the person contracting for transport, and no one is ever
forced to use any particular transport company.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

Fred

In article , Nomen
Nescio writes
    >> ...
    >>> What if you were unable to return on the booked return journey for
    >>> reasons beyond your control? (illness, car accident)
    >>
    >> That is what travel insurance is for.
    >Wouldn't the company have to demonstrate that the customer's failure
    >to return on the scheduled trip had caused it a loss, relative to the
    >company's costs of carrying out the day return contract (not relative
    >to the price of a longer return ticket), in order to claim damages?
If they're selling the trip as a loss leader, then they may just be able to
demonstrate the loss :-(
--
fred