funforus:

Oh yes, completely agree, Dicksomes were a complete disaster although the only purchase I ever made there worked to my advantage not theirs.

They were the only 'agent' in the region for Sage accounting software and I needed a copy on the same day.

I totally agree with the cashback's must stop theme, and that us as consumers actually will be the ones who should choose not to go with them. Never again, once bitten, twice shy etc.

I can neither confirm or deny if I happen to work for that accountancy software company, but luckily (wherever it is that I work) our division doesn't do the high street retail thing ... hence we don't have to deal with D'somes

P.S. Has anyone seen the prices they charge for some blank CD's that are 'optimised for audio'?

... er how does that work then? My CD player can cope with the odd data error on an audio CD, my computer data is a bit more easily corrupted.

Landshark:

Thanks to sb et al for hijacking this link for your windmill-tilting exercises.

my apologies for hijacking your thread.

sb:

sorry about this, got this earlier on

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

Hi everyone apologies for not writing sooner I have been extremely busy lately the meeting with channel 4 has been pushed back to try and accommodate everyone. We will be in touch in the next few days with the exact date, time and location. Thanks for bearing with us on this matter.

Thanks to sb et al for hijacking this link for your windmill-tilting exercises. I will be interested to see exactly what this futile demonstration actually achieves. Also interested that Channel 4 seems to be the one taking up the cudgels on your mission - we can't even receive that channel here.

If you're all so certain of your facts, why don't you all take the matter to court - and fight it properly? MILLIONS demonstrated about going to war against Iraq and look how much notice the government took of that. Hundreds of thousands signed a petition regarding fuel duty and this was ignored.

I don't see MPs actually DOING anything about this so I don't see how an obscure Channel 4 production is going to help either - except possibly to show how gullible the idiotic sheep were who bought into the cashback stupidity.

SHARK!

sorry about this, got this earlier on

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

Hi everyone apologies for not writing sooner I have been extremely busy lately the meeting with channel 4 has been pushed back to try and accommodate everyone. We will be in touch in the next few days with the exact date, time and location. Thanks for bearing with us on this matter.

time is now confirmed 4 to 5

exact venue has yet to be confirmed

Dear P######### users,

On behalf of the P#### S#### Team we would like to invite all member’s to an exclusive interview with channel 4 taking place on the 16th January 2007, in close proximity to Birmingham city centre
Have your chance to express your views regarding cash back scams and how you and people close to you were affected. Please help make a difference to all the people affected.
Now is the time to unite, the networks will be asked why they have been so unsympathetic to all of us who have been severely affected by these scams. It is an hour long programme and the networks will have no place to hide. Please help us and yourselves by being on the show that the p######### team has worked so very hard to get onto.
For more information please email me
Kindest Regards



Dispatches

Hi sb grate work you're doing. What's the latest on the protest? Have you been or is it coming up soon?

VCM4:

sb- (to the mods)......i think in the interest of the greater interest, links of other sites where the same fight is going on to resolve the cashback issue should be allowed.

Links to other forums are against the rules and are needed to maintain independance and impartiality of MS, if they were to be allowed in this case, then it would not be fair to prohibit them in all other campaigns.

Thanking you.

i know, but surely to every rule there must be an exception. imagine if we can beat these fraudsters at this then this sets a precedent in consumer rights. big will be no more beautiful.

the reason i say this is that we need critical mass and once we reach CM these companies will be offering you your monies back without even going to court. they are not stupid.

the game now is will we be able to reach CM. these companies are trying out our determination and speed. they are hoping things will fizzle out in a few months/a year.

or

if we got together and worked a plan and a case and decided to take them to court on an individual basis, the CM here would definately be smaller and possibly quicker to reach. possibly work out a letter to send to operators demanding all cashbacks to make it official and on record. keep the pressure up, they are human too and could possibly let up sooner than we think.

sb- (to the mods)......i think in the interest of the greater interest, links of other sites where the same fight is going on to resolve the cashback issue should be allowed.

Links to other forums are against the rules and are needed to maintain independance and impartiality of MS, if they were to be allowed in this case, then it would not be fair to prohibit them in all other campaigns.

Thanking you.

Thanks sb, I've posted on two or three other sites recommending that folk come here as the discussion is more advanced in this thread and the Fonezone thread in particular.

excellent work, funforus.

do you guys know anything about a channel 4 report being made on cashbacks, 16 January, Birmingham.

will give more details later.

(to the mods)......i think in the interest of the greater interest, links of other sites where the same fight is going on to resolve the cashback issue should be allowed.

we need to drive an important lesson home to the fraudsters no matter how big, you will be squeezed by your b****.

Landshark said in a previous post:

The law needs to be changed to make networks completely responsible for contracts issued by anyone on their behalf and the networks culpable for their agent's behaviour. Only then will you see some sense coming into this melee of greed and corruption.

The law does not need to be changed (please, no more laws!) merely dusted down. It already says that - read up on the 'law of Agency' which Drumster and I have now agreed does actually exist. Some references are in my posts above.

Essentially if a 'Principal' (network) and an 'Agent' (reseller) allow a situation to exist to their own benefit - even where thre is no formal 'agency' or agency agreement - without action by the 'Principal' to stop it existing which creates the reasonable assumption in the mind of a third party (consumer) that the Principal stands behind the Agent in the making of an offer then the obligation of the Principal to accept the liability of the Agent will be established and upheld. See the template letters on the Which? website.

Frankly most lawyers know little about these aspects of contract law so don't expect your average conveyancing and general family solicitor to leap straight to it without gentle guidance or a kick up the well fed rump and in any case the sums involved make it easier and cheaper to do it yourself . . . This is being discussed in greater detail on the Fonezone and CSS threads.

Regards, Funforus

Oh yes, completely agree, Dicksomes were a complete disaster although the only purchase I ever made there worked to my advantage not theirs.

They were the only 'agent' in the region for Sage accounting software and I needed a copy on the same day. Usual thing, phoned, told that 'the computer says two in stock' hop in car and go to collect. On arrival at shop I announced that I had arrived to 'pick up a copy of Sage Accountant' then I was told 'there was a mistake, only one in stock Sir . . . ' Shop droid then got out a form and asked for all my details and politely told me that he needed to go to the stockroom.

Went to stockroom for around quarter of an hour and returned to say 'that's it, all arranged'. I looked for the bag in his hand but there was none and he made no signs of asking me to pay. He realised my expectation and politely told me that I couldn't have the one that was in stock as it was a display item - despite not being on display - and he wasn't allowed to sell it to me! Naturally I went ballistic, departed and swore never to go there again. A copy was sourced from many miles away and sent overnight.

A few weeks later a parcel arrived from Dicksomes with a copy of Sage Accountant, attached was a photocopy of an internal note asking for an urgent posting of a copy when a delivery was received together with my name and firm, a month or so later another one and this went on at regular intervals until we had four or five. At the time this package cost around £325. Eventually the deliveries dried up but no one ever asked for them back and no payment was ever requested. As the packs were shrink wrapped and unopened and the copies were unregistered we sold them to other clients on other projects and never had to wait again. As far as I know there is still a note on our books saying that we hold a four figure sum which may be repayable to Dicksomes!

Didn't know they owned Currys but then I've only ever once been in one and they didn't have what I wanted so I've never returned.

Regards, Funforus

WHICH? soft interview... John Clare, chief executive, DSG International. Currys tends to be the villain of the peace on this Forum. I wouldn't shop in Dixons for thirty odd years and in just over forty years have bought two or three things I wanted but didn't need from them that I couldn't get elsewhere. I was less than impressed with myself. My views on what Sir Stanley Kalms did for consumers are unprintable.

Regards

dumpster

Thank you, then I withdraw the kisses. I didn't realise you were an Esq, that implies Gentleman.

I recommend the S&M, there is more detailed stuff to be found but that gives the general background.

For more intricate detail try discussions on from Watteau v Fenwick and learned commentary from the academics can be found at Tettenborn, A - Agents, Business owners and estoppel (1998) Cambridge Law Journal and Cohen, G.M. The collusion problem in agency law. I think this was also 1998 but I can't remember who and where published.

'Agency' is a critically important part of contract law and the essence of the 'cashback problem' is in the nature of contract and whether 'agency' exists.

For most readers it is not the why that matters (or indeed the when or the who) rather it is the 'how' that they can apply to extract the promised cashback from those who now have their money. This is a simple matter of a step by step process using the formula letters for the many people whose retailer did not make clear that they were not, in fact, agents of the particular network that they concluded contract for.

In my own case I was meticulous in enquiring if the retailer was an agent for the network as they had described their cashback as a discount on tarrif (and the tarrif belongs to the network). They answered that they were (a simple test that the network could carry out itself) and so I assumed that the network was 'Principal' - standing behind the 'Agent' in the contract concluded.

I would imagine that many others were / are in the same position and when you have read up on it you will see that since the networks enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the benefit so they must also shoulder the responsibilities . . .

So, you have a whole new province of law to discover! I'd recommend that you delve into commercial contract at the same time as each helps makes sense of the other.

Best regards (no love or kisses), Funforus

(Wife says you can have a little kiss from her for so quickly and graciously admitting error and apologising)