Tried to cancel MBNA credit card

Fergus, is there any way I could persuade you to install OE-Quotefix?

Bhoy

the

think

destroys the

How so ?

described above)

a voluntary

OE-Quotefix?

I have done - but sometimes I forget to use it. Oops.

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

Good for you. And which bit of it are you relying on?

Well I do. I think that, in the same way that a guarantor can assume the place of the primary creditor, subrogation is available as is a right in equity.

It would not be voluntary, it would be contractual.

---------------------------------------- "john boyle" wrote

----------------------------------------

"john boyle" wrote

Does the contract remain in force *after* it has been cancelled? :-(

In message , Tim writes

I believe the debtors obligations would remain.

"john boyle" wrote

Suppose someone had a contract in the past for (eg) a mobile telephone. The contract required payment of (say) 20.00 per month (which included a number of inclusive minutes). After a few years, the customer realised that they weren't using that mobile anymore and so were paying 20 per month for nothing. They cancel the contract and cease paying the 20pm charge.

Now, suppose the mobile telephone company suddenly (unilaterally) starts up the service again sometime later (after cancellation of contract) and tries to charge the ex-customer 20 - when again they haven't used the service.

We are supposing that the 'phone company *did* provide the service, although the contract hadn't been reinstated after cancellation - do "debtors obligations remain" in this case too?? I certainly hope not!!

How can you make a post about forgetting to use something, and simultaneously forget to use it? Or is it just borked on your PC?

In message , Rhoy the Bhoy writes

Because a merchant has to be confident that if he follows the CCo's procedures he WILL get his money, not MIGHT get his money and the customer needs to be able to walk out of the shop, as it were, with the goods immediately on payment, not after the payment has been 'cleared'.

In message , Tim writes

I agree. But there is no comparison with the point in question here is there?

I am not sure that I understand your boggling. I don't always use Quotefix because it occasionally gives problems and I often visit Usenet to download only.

(1) mobile phone contract = contract between CCo & customer (2) mobile phone contract cancelled = CC contract cancelled (3) phone transaction occurs after cancellation = CC transaction occurs after cancellation (4) point (3) above means that ex-customer is *not* a debtor of mobile phone company, but *is* a debtor of CCo???

Assuming that there is no provision in the T&C of CC that (relevant part of) the contract remains in force after cancellation, why does the customer become a debtor to the CCo without an active&valid contract between them?

In message , Tim writes

For the comparison to be valid the customer would need to have used the phone without £20 charge being levied.

Of Course not, he would be a creditor!!!!!

Youve got it the wrong way round.

Yo dont need a contract to become a debtor. Obtaining goods by deception, for example, has no underlying contract but the criminal is a debtor to the injured party.

A merchant in that situation can indeed have such confidence. My "theory" has no real application thereto.

I thought that we were discussing the issue of whether a CC co could legitimately tell the cardholder that no cancellation of a transaction, especially one covered by a "standing order" (however labelled), is possible unless contact is made with the merchant by the cardholder. Related to this is the assertion that a credit card company can refuse to close an account.

I say that, in the absence of a clear and unambiguous consent by the cardholder to the term, any term in the credit card contract which could be interpreted as justifying the above behaviour would, at a minimum, fail the Interfoto test (aka the attention test).

That test says that a contract term which is onerous or unusual is not enforceable unless the party that drafted the contract brought the term to the attention of the other party.

If the credit card contract has no such term, and mine don't appear to have, then there is no legal basis at all for such conduct by the CC company.

Er, the grounds to which you refer.

I think that we have lost our way here.

I was not suggesting that a card-holder can pay for something with the card, and then simply tell the card company not to pay for no good or sufficient reason, and walk away leaving the merchant to sue him FWIW.

I was addressing the opposite situation where the cardholder has a valid grievance with the merchant but the CC company insists that the money must continue to flow unless the merchant stops it.

writes

And I agree, providing the obligations are valid.

Cancellation only affects liabilities purporting to be created after cancellation.

writes

Ah. Conclusive proof that we have been at cross-purposes.

What a relief ! I thought that you had lost it and you clearly were in a similar frame of mind.