Tesco took my points away

[Action it]

Hi All

 

I accumulated Tesco clubcard points over many years with over 500 mobiles & CD purchased, along with grocery shopping.

 

Tesco issued my vouchers which arrived in the post. I found out my vouchers have been suspended when I tried to use the. Tesco simplay claim that I abused the scheme using the below term.

 

"THE TESCO CLUBCARD SCHEME IS ONLY FOR PERSONAL AND CONSUMER USE"

 

I'm think of taking Tesco to court and I'm looking for advise and opinions please. Has anyone took Tesco to court over points and actually won?

 

Kind regards,

[maroondevo52]

Hello and Welcome,

 

I'll move this thread to a more appropriate Forum where hopefully you'll get some help.

 

Please check your 'Notifications' I'll send you Private Message with the 'link'.

[Action it]

Thank you maroondevo52!

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

 

No problem just need someone to help you now, sorry I'm not too hot on Tesco Clubcard stuff !

[MrShed]

2 questions:

 

- How many points are we talking?

- What was the reason for the high number of mobile purchases etc?

 

The second question in particular is very applicable.

[MrShed]

Also presumably, you have already received the vouchers...?

 

To be honest, I suspect the chance you have of any success with this is virtually zero - Tesco state explicitly, and seperately to the term regarding business use, that members can be withdrawn from the scheme at Tesco discretion.

 

http://www.tesco.com/clubcard/clubcard/terms.asp#the_scheme

 

Have you written a letter of complaint to tesco head office?

[Action it]

Hi Mr Shed

 

It was £5,000 points

 

Over 500 mobile & cd purchases

 

Spend was made to collect points. The phones I did open and use I then give a lot away & sold the rest at less purchase price.

[Action it]

Do I have a case please?

[MrShed]

In that case I cant see any case.

 

Tesco will view that as abuse of the system, and have used their term to remove you at their discretion. I'm not surprised to be honest.

 

Learning experience in my opinion - leave it and move on. Write a letter to them if you wish, but I suspect you will struggle. I certainly wouldnt waste time and money taking it to court.

[Dragons Dennis]

You bought the phones to give away at less than purchase price? Something just does not add up here. Some cynical people may wonder how the items were paid for and the motivation behind all this.

 

I agree with MrShed and Tesco. Seems like a blatent abuse of the consumer system by someone who appears to be trading if I am honest.

[Conniff]

The phones I did open and use I then give a lot away & sold the rest at less purchase price.

 

I am with the others on this, you aren't telling it as it is and if you can't convince the people on here, what hope have you of convincing a more learned gentleman in court.

 

As each point is worth 1 penny, no one uses pounds to buy pennies.

 

500 mobiles to get points, pull the other one, it's got bells on it, or should that be ringtones.

 

Even if it was over 10 years, thats one every week for the whole ten years.

[Kraken1]

On the basis of the info (and omissions) here, a claim has no chance.

[Action it]

Thanks all.

 

My motivation was the points which I saw as cash value (x4 for rewards), some had extra points, hence I was able to sell some at less than buy price to build up the points.

 

I was hoping the contract with points would have formed at time of purchase, but it seems that Tesco's terms cancel this out.

[Action it]

Sorry to continue this but I'm wondering if there are any legal expert in the house. I've come across a quasi-contract. Just wondered if it could be applied to my case

 

A contract which is implied in fact / quasi-contract is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. To remedy situation in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other.

From an objective perspective Tesco gave the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms.

Tesco knew of my spending beavhiour & a quasi-contract is formed. Tesco have been unjustly enriched with my cash payments and they have now retrospectively removed the acceptance of the offer which was the purchase of items with points yet they have been rewarded with my monies.

Any opinions will be appreciated.

[perplexity]

Clearly enough "have not done so expressly" implies that there is no particular evidence of terms and conditions agreed to.

 

The purchase of consumer goods is not the seller's acceptance of a buyer's offer to buy; it's the buyer's acceptance of the seller's offer to sell.

 

[Michael Browne]

 

The purchase of consumer goods is not the seller's acceptance of a buyer's offer to buy; it's the buyer's acceptance of the seller's offer to sell.

 

I always thought it was the other way round. A retailer makes an invitation to treat, a customer makes an offer to buy, which the retailer can accept or refuse. The contract is made at the point the retailer accepts the buyers offer

[MrShed]

Sorry to continue this but I'm wondering if there are any legal expert in the house. I've come across a quasi-contract. Just wondered if it could be applied to my case

 

A contract which is implied in fact / quasi-contract is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. To remedy situation in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other.

From an objective perspective Tesco gave the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms.

Tesco knew of my spending beavhiour & a quasi-contract is formed. Tesco have been unjustly enriched with my cash payments and they have now retrospectively removed the acceptance of the offer which was the purchase of items with points yet they have been rewarded with my monies.

Any opinions will be appreciated.

 

They havent been unjustly enriched with your cash payments.

 

You received the goods for which you paid.

 

The contractual terms WERE accepted - read them.

[perplexity]

I always thought it was the other way round. A retailer makes an invitation to treat, a customer makes an offer to buy, which the retailer can accept or refuse. The contract is made at the point the retailer accepts the buyers offer

 

 

Section 210 of the Enterprise Act defines a consumer. An essential condition is that

 

goods are or are sought to be supplied to the individual (whether by way of sale or otherwise) in the course of a business carried on by the person supplying or seeking to supply them

The offer exists in the fact that a seller sets up the shop to sell his goods at a price to be paid. At a public auction on the other hand the price to be paid is determined by the bidder who is therefore deemed to have made the offer.

 

"Invitation to treat" is rather a question of when and if a contract is concluded, the inference being that a seller may not be forced to sell, simply because he set up the shop.

 

8)

[Michael Browne]

 

 

The offer exists in the fact that a seller sets up the shop to sell his goods at a price to be paid. At a public auction on the other hand the price to be paid is determined by the bidder who is therefore deemed to have made the offer.

 

"Invitation to treat" is rather a question of when and if a contract is concluded, the inference being that a seller may not be forced to sell, simply because he set up the shop.

 

These tend to disagree:

 

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322984

 

http://www.muckle-llp.com/F1316/What-is-the-difference-between-an-offer-and-an-invitation-to-treat.html

 

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Invitation_to_treat

[perplexity]

The Tesco Clubcard scheme was obviously expected to bind the parties, not to be an invitation to treat.

 

When the vouchers arrived in the post the customer expected to spend them, not to negotiate.

 

[Kraken1]

micheal - you are right.

 

Perp is talking rubbish, as per usual. We've had the enterprise act, the dsrs and interpretation act will be along shortly. Save for a bit of ridicule, we pretty much ignore him these days.

[perplexity]

Did the buyer invent the clubcard scheme and offer it to Tesco?

 

[Kraken1]

Did Carlill invent carbolic smoke balls?

[Michael Browne]

Did the buyer invent the clubcard scheme and offer it to Tesco?

 

No, of course not. The Clubcard scheme is a completely separate issue to the purchase of consumer goods and governed by it's own T&C's.

 

But I seem to remember that it was you that introduced the subject of the purchase of consumer goods with:

 

 

 

The purchase of consumer goods is not the seller's acceptance of a buyer's offer to buy; it's the buyer's acceptance of the seller's offer to sell.

 

and I was merely questioning whether you had got it arse about face., which you apparently have.

[perplexity]

No, of course not. The Clubcard scheme is a completely separate issue to the purchase of consumer goods and governed by it's own T&C's.

 

According to the message I responded to, the Clubcard scheme is not at all a separate issue:

 

... they have now retrospectively removed the acceptance of the offer which was the purchase of items with points yet they have been rewarded with my monies.

 

The customer treats the scheme as if the points were purchased, supplied by Tesco in the course of a business, the same as the mobile phones and CDs.

 

I would rather expect though, that a judge would treat the clubcard scheme as a unilateral contract, not an invitation to treat.

 

The "invitation to treat" precedents qualify the law with regard to whichever particular circumstance. They do not establish that every consumer contract is the seller's acceptance of a buyer's offer to pay.

 

8)