Voda-Assist is being disingenuous as are many of the Vodaphoneys . . . Deals agreed with a middleman are only contracts with the middleman when they a clear, distinct and meet the requirements of contract - an offer, an acceptance and a consideration. They must also be 'fair' - that means they must be open, obvious and clearly expressed . . . .
Some were and, indeed, are. However most that I have looked at were not. Middlemen acting as agents arrange deals and the contract is with the principal - the end supplier - not with the agent. I doubt whether Voda-Phoney would be very happy to buy a ticket for an event from a bona fide agent, find the event was cancelled and then be told by the event promoter that the promoter was not liable for repayment as the deal was agreed with a middleman . . .
Ah, I hear the Voda-Phoney say, this deal was in bits . . . Well in some cases as I have said that was or is made obvious, in others it was not. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that in many cases the dealer / reseller positively represented the deal as a VodaPhoney deal or a NastyReddishColour deal or a Virgin (oh yeah?) deal . . . whatever. I have a collection of screen shots and advertisements of just such such representations and I myself have been happily assured by a motormouth salesman that the reseller was an agent for my network and the deal was supported by them . . .
Of course you might say as Mandy Rice-Davis did in rather different circumstances ‘Well, he would say that wouldn’t he’ and no doubt our friendly local Voda-Phoney will say that is just sales patter. The answer to that is that there was an awful lot of that going on and it went on, indeed still goes on, for a very long time.
Up pipes the Voda-Phoney again . . . asking ‘what has that to do with the price of fish?’ Well, nothing. However, Common Law, judge made law evolved from common sense over a long period of time, says that where a principal (in this case a network), allows and encourages an agent to use their name, their livery and logo etc in transactions that deliver benefit to them as principal but in the negotiation of which the agent exceeds their authority – or the principal doesn’t bother to supervise them properly – then the principal becomes liable for the deals struck by the agent . . . after all, the networks happily enforce the bits of the composite deal advantageous to them!
Basically Voda-Phoney, the networks cannot have their cake and eat it! What galls me and many others is that these deals were targeted at the very groups most desperate for low cost services, extended families in immigrant communities – often took on several contracts, disabled people and their carers so as to keep in touch, students, people in low paid occupations etc. etc. The arrogance, the misrepresentation and on occasion the lies spouted by these value and moral free outfits frankly make me sick. And, for Voda-Phoneys information, his network is equal worst in this plain nastyness.
I got my money back from my network (far more polite, reasonable and ethical that Voda-Phoneys bunch of money-grubbers) however, I have become so incensed by what I have seen in the behaviour of other networks that I will probably spend time in excess of the value of what I recovered trying to do what I think is right.
Funforus (but not for Voda-Phoneys!)