More Dishonesty by Tesco Mobile

[Hector12]

This is further to my posts of 2nd & 8th Sept 2012 which explain the original problem and follows a recent Supreme Court ruling:-

What's the difference between someone stopping me in the street and saying "give me £690 or I'll punch you on the nose" and someone stopping me in the street and saying "give me £690 or I'll put defaults on your credit rating and you won't be able to borrow any money".

Suppose I wrote to Tesco and said "send me £690 or I'll put poison in food in your stores and no-one will buy it".

 

Are any of these crimes? Well apparently the latter is a crime. A few years ago (when this racket was popular) a few people went to prison for doing it.

 

Note the recent Supreme Court ruling on a matter where someone went into a store (I think in Aberdeen) and bought a laptop on the understanding it had a modem, and took a credit agreement to pay for it. He took it back next day because it didn't have a modem and the store cancelled the sale but refused to do anything about the credit agreement because it was with another company. The finance company insisted the customer continue with the payments even though the purchase was cancelled and put defaults on his credit history when he didn't keep up the payments. As a result he lost a house he was buying. The Supreme Court ruled that the shop had "a Duty of Care" to their customer which included seeing that the finance agreement was cancelled at the same time as the sale.

 

Does Tesco have "a Duty of Care" to make sure that if they pursue people for money, that the people they are pursuing do actually owe the money?

Can anyone with legal expertise offer an opinion on these matters? Joe Public would find the results interesting.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Hector12

[adridude]

In short, the goods were "goods unfit for purpose" and "sold by deceptive means".

 

In terms of the deception, this is covered by the "Misrepresentation Act", which is quite a handy one and which many companies NEVER think of..

 

Take e quick nose at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7

 

By the first few paragraphs it's clear that we're protected from this.

 

I wouldn't call it a "Duty of Care", but I would call it "Damages" which are also mentioned in the first few paragraphs of the Misrep Act... However I'm fairly sure that this would be covered by quite a few others too.

 

Just to add, at q quick glance, and I'm no lawyer, I notice on that Ch 7 of the Act which I shared with you the following:

 

"2 Damages for misrepresentation."

(1)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.

 

From what I guess, if they can magically prove that a modemless laptop magically had one when you bought it, they pretty much have to pay for damages.. I would "assume" this would too be true for the loss of a house and security, for the anxiety and for the defamatory action that the credit defaults had on his credit rating.