Jump to content


icemen

whatever happens knowhow cover

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 373 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I think I need to add here that the calculation you have to make which I referred to in my previous post – must be balanced against the risk of you losing the case.

 

I think that your chances of success are very high but of course you will only really find out on the day of the hearing when the judge makes a decision. If the judge finds against you then you will have thrown everything away and you will probably feel very angry.

 

This is all a serious consideration. I suppose that the end of the day the case will turn on the meaning of "mishap". It is clear to me that there is a conflict within the know-how provisions because on one hand they talk of mishaps and on the other hand they try to exclude liability for an accident.

 

Assuming that you decide to continue with your claim, you will have to point out to the judge that the know-how cover has been carelessly worded because it contains conflicting language. You will have to point out to the judge however that the defendants are well resourced and claim to be experts on what they do and so it would be for them to assure that the know-how cover policy is properly drawn up. You would have to asked the judge to accept that you are simply a layperson, a customer with no special knowledge and you are relying on the spirit of the know-how policy and that you are not a lawyer who is expected to be able to analyse the language in fine detail. Therefore any ambiguities in the wording should be interpreted against the larger better resourced defendant. Any ambiguities should be resolved in your favour as you are the customer and you are the weaker party.

 

In law this is known as the contra preferentum rule. This rule says that any ambiguous provisions in a contract will generally be interpreted against the party seeking to rely on language – especially where that party is responsible for the language and is the dominant party in the relationship. The defendant here is definitely the larger dominant party. In legal parlance you would describe them as "the better loss bearer".

The loss to them is insignificant. The loss to you is significant.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like to say thank you to everyone on this forum especially Bankfodder for support and advise. Today I have agreed to settle out of court with PC World for the sum of £220.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good result. Well done.There is a donate button somewhere!!!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...