| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 11/20/2007 : 01:16:39
|
Actually, I feel the sudden urge to buy a load of www.sebclark.<county code of choice> domain names  |
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 03:58:22
|
 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 12:24:19
|
Well, I finally got a response and the long and short of it is that 123-Reg says that it doesn't guarantee the renewal process is without errors and it's up to the customer to check the domain has been renewed. This is all in their T&C's so I can't really argue.
What I can do, however, is warn anyone else out there who may be thinking of using 123-Reg against doing so. If nothing else, you should be wary of any company that has something in their T&C's saying...
"Whilst PIPEX will use its reasonable endeavours to register a Requested Domain, PIPEX will not be obliged to accept any request to register or continue to process any registration of a Requested Domain."
...when it's primary business is to register and continue to process domain names. Basically, this is like the ultimate get-out clause for doing your job.
What's worse, 123-Reg didn't actually inform me they wouldn't renew my domain, so not only do they make no promise to do their job but they also won't tell you if they don't (whilst also happily accepting payment).
Needless to say, I'll be shifting all my domain names elsewhere and if anyone else is looking to register domain names, avoid 123-Reg like the plague.
On the plus side, I got my payment back  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 12:36:37
|
Yes, you can argue.
T&Cs cannot absolve companies of certain basic responsibilities.
Put simply, anyone who puts themselves forward as prepared to do a professional job for payment and takes your money is responsible for doing it and is responsible for the consequences of their failure.
Is this wasn't so, all businesses would always have conditions which said they were not responsible and so they would never be sued.
Including such terms and conditions is not illegal (unfortunately), they are just invalid. We have something called the Unfair Contracts Act which covers this.
You just need to write back to them, tell them that you do not accept their T&Cs to be valid and let them know how much money you require from them in compensation for their failure. Give them 14 days to make a substantive reply otherwise you will take legal action without further notice.
When you've done that, get a few more of my reviews approved, wouldja?
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 12:40:23
|
| One slight problem- I've long ago already accepted their T&C's. There's a checkbox on their sign up page which covers this. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 13:43:15
|
Not a problem if, as I believe, such terms are invalid.
As you have said, they are seeking to exclude liability for the very thing they are being paid to do i.e. register your domain name. Such an exclusion is simply not legally valid because its unreasonable.
Many many companies have unreasonable T&Cs in order to frighten off claimants. Its unfortunate that there's absolutely no law against having terms and conditions which are unreasonable - all that happens is, when you get to court, the judge decides they are unreasonable and throws them out. Of course they have to be unreasonable, but the above paragraph reasonably states the position.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty confident on this simple principle of contract law. Also bear in mind it just costs you a few quid to take out a County Court writ, and because they are a company they would need to pay a lawyer to represent them in court if it went that far. As the small claims system allows very little room for recovering legal costs they are very unlikely to go down that road without offering some sort of settlement first as 1. they are likely to lose and 2. even if they win they are out of pocket. Oh, and 3. if/when you win you make it clear you will publicise the invalidity of their T&Cs on the net so no-one else will hesitate in suing them.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 22:19:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
One slight problem- I've long ago already accepted their T&C's. There's a checkbox on their sign up page which covers this.
That doesn't matter. As Whipper suggested, the clause is invalid. The fact you've signed it means little. E.g., you sign a contract stating that I can chop your hand off with an axe, I then chop your hand off with an axe, you can still sue me damages and I'll still be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm. The contract means nothing, as the law does not permit me to chop your hand off.
In essence, if the law says one thing, and a clause in a contract says something else, then the clause is invalid as the law always takes priority.
If UK law is anything like NZ law then I have little doubt you can win this (if you can be bothered). It may be that all that is required is the initial threat of legal action, and they'll come to the party as they probably know they will lose (and suffer from adverse publicity). At the moment they'll just be hoping you'll go away.
So it comes down to whether you want to bother or not.  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 22:24:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by 8enj clews
One slight problem- I've long ago already accepted their T&C's. There's a checkbox on their sign up page which covers this.
That doesn't matter. As Whipper suggested, the clause is invalid. The fact you've signed it means little. E.g., you sign a contract stating that I can chop your hand off with an axe, I then chop your hand off with an axe, you can still sue me damages and I'll still be prosecuted for grievous bodily harm. The contract means nothing, as the law does not permit me to chop your hand off.
In essence, if the law says one thing, and a clause in a contract says something else, then the clause is invalid as the law always takes priority.
If UK law is anything like NZ law then I have little doubt you can win this (if you can be bothered). It may be that all that is required is the initial threat of legal action, and they'll come to the party as they probably know they will lose (and suffer from adverse publicity). At the moment they'll just be hoping you'll go away.
So it comes down to whether you want to bother or not.
I'm not sure I can be. I'm still chasing up two other complaints I have with other companies elsewhere- and those are just letters of complaint, let alone making threats of legal action which I know absolutely nothing about 
If anyone seriously thinks I have any hope in this I'd consider it, but they have a very lengthy T&C's page (http://www.123-reg.co.uk/terms/general-terms.shtml) which I can barely fathom.
Give me code to debug any day |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 11/21/2007 : 22:50:03
|
I'm not a lawyer either (except possibly the barrack room kind), but I think Whipper is right.
Here's a link to the site of BERR (UK Department of Business Regulation etc).
I'm not sure about the valuation point, but the rest seems right.
Sorry to hear of the problem. This seems the cyber equivalent of kidnap - ransom to be decided later. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 11:08:30
|
| I'm not a lawyer either but all my understanding leads me to agree with the others. Sean's analogy, while extreme, is perfectly valid. And definitely pursue it - not enough people pursuing these things allows them to continue. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 12:21:05
|
No, Sean's analogy is not perfectly valid. Actually it's perfectly crap.
It mixes criminal law and civil law and is probably wrong anyway.
Chopping off someone's hand with their agreement would still be a criminal offence, at least here in the UK, but I don't think it would lead to a successful civil action if there was a genuine agreement between the two parties.
With fwfr.co.uk we are just talking about civil law - no-one has committed any criminal offence as far as we know so don't confuse the two situations.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 12:33:38
|
| All that makes the situations different - it doesn't stop them from being analagous. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 13:36:25
|
If your last post has any useful meaning, please explain what it is.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Attention Benj - fwfr.co.uk is missing
