Game Refund

Chat about games you play when you're NOT playing on UKCS

Re: Game Refund

Postby Little_Devil on Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:13 am

Those terms must be prominent and quite evident at time of purchase, not as a link to somewhere else.

I spoke to paypal, who told me they have followed the 2015 legislation so there is no problem.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Game Refund

Postby Binerexis on Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:55 pm

Just thought I'd mention it as the judge you quoted didn't state that it COULDN'T be on a separate page, just that a well-informed consumer would be aware of it. Again, that's something that you would have to argue in court but one could definitely argue that the fact Steam has published and publicised its refund policy that a well-informed consumer would be aware of it.
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Little_Devil on Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:06 pm

The terminology used by the judge is actually in the CRA(Consumer Rights Act)
Hiding things in the small print is now banned.
The CRA means all contracts must now clearly state the main elements of the deal and outline the price in a transparent and prominent way.
The terms must be in plain and intelligible language and, if written, in a legible format.
The terms must be prominent so an average well-informed, observant and circumspect consumer would be aware of them.
It’s now not acceptable for key terms to be hidden in pages of terms and conditions that you need a magnify glass to read. Terms other than those specifying the main elements of the contract and setting the price will seen as unfair if:
They are contrary to the requirements of good faith. They must be designed, negotiated and entered into with you in a fair and open way.


In other words any terms must be prominent at the time of purchase and with digital content, must not be hidden on other pages or links to pages.

The CRA is not the only law when it comes to contract law.

Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)
Operators should also ensure compliance with the CPRs, which cover a range of different areas, including business
to consumer contracts. They make it a criminal offence to engage in commercial practices which amount to a
misleading act or omission, where this would cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he or she would not otherwise have taken.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Game Refund

Postby Binerexis on Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:51 am

Again, like I said before, what you're inferring as the meaning from the law in terms of what a company MUST do is something which is not in the letter of the law and would need to be argued in a court case.

As someone who deals with European law on a daily basis, inferring meaning without court cases and summary judgement to the specifics of what you're saying (i.e. that the refund terms must be on the same page as the store page or the payment confirmation page) can be very damaging to your argument which, if I were a betting man, would be why serious sanctions have not been brought against Steam in the EU.
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Little_Devil on Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:20 pm

Sorry I am not inferring anything at all, just pointing out what the law actually says. I do of course know that in some cases that until there is a precedent set in law by way of court action, then a company may contest with the opposing party, any law. However where something is stated specifically in law then there does not have to be a test case.

You have to realise that much of the 2015 legislative law has come into being from different parts of consumer and contract laws, that has had precedents set by way of both UK and EU courts. Also as I pointed out there are other consumer laws which have had precedents already set, that a company would have to take into account if they wished to spend a lot of money to defend their actions.

I do agree however that some large companies think they can contest the law with impunity as they can throw large amounts of money at legal teams to contest laws, something we already know Steam have done with the ACCC, to their detriment. This is not a person having to fork out money to contest companies like Steam as it has to be Steam contesting the law itself.

As far as EU sanctions, this is UK legislative law and has nothing to do with the EU. Under UK law a company would have to present its case for not wanting to pay an imposed penalty for breaking the law.

I think you will find people are scared of the law, as companies like Steam use veiled threats and publicise actions they have taken against people for breaking their T&C's, to stop people going through the correct channels and making valid complaints.

Making posts that law has to have a precedent in court is misleading people into believing that they have to go to court with the associated expense. However there are courses of action any consumer can take, whereby the Government, can and do, impose fines against companies, without ever going near a court. Legislative law is well thought out law and is hardly ever contested in its entirety, although, as I said, some companies will try to pick apart bits of the law in their favour. Steam have already tried that with the ACCC and lost, which you could call a precedent given Australian law is not so dissimilar to both UK and EU laws.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Game Refund

Postby Slavechild on Mon May 02, 2016 10:18 pm

LD your quote from the mirror news website is a tad misleading, a journalist's take on it after all, here is the link to the consumer rights (CR) for 2015 .. something you seemed to be unable to quote correctly from. Presumably because it doesn't suit your narrative.

Seeing you argue in court that you would fall into the category of what CR states as an "average consumer" who is "reasonably
well-informed, observant and circumspect." would be hilarious, even reminiscent of a monty python sketch.

Your reply on Apr 11, that I missed, makes no sense .. its like you've read parts of the consumer law/daily mail articles/random tidbits from the web and amalgamated them into some sort of nonsense you think is the "law", I would point out your pitfalls again but I would be repeating my earlier posts.
Magical Facebook Fairy wrote:Image
User avatar
Slavechild
Home Member
 
Player: Slavechild
STEAM_0:1:26412177
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Hampshire



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Binerexis on Tue May 03, 2016 11:55 am

Just want to point out that this:

"Making posts that law has to have a precedent in court is misleading people into believing that they have to go to court with the associated expense."

has thrown me for a loop.

Precedents are set in court. If the law in its raw form says X but then a case successfully argues that X doesn't work and Y should instead be used, the court case decision to use Y trumps the original decision to use X. This is why case law is so important; it can change how laws are applied. This is why I was asking for an example of your argument being used successfully in a court case. If your argument follows the law, it would have been argued and upheld in court. If it was argued but then successfully countered by a different argument in court, that sets a precedent for other similar cases.

This is most frequently done with definitions of terms in a court case. In this instance, it would be what constitutes a well-informed consumer which, at least from what you quoted, was not defined in a way which makes anything clear-cut.
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Little_Devil on Fri May 20, 2016 9:47 am

Slavechild wrote:LD your quote from the mirror news website is a tad misleading,.


Confused, where is that link to the mirror news group ? The only links I can see being given are to Government web sites including the link to the law which you wish to give in pdf form, which is never a good idea, as laws are amended from time to time.
Even in digital form the following is stated.
Changes to legislation:

There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Consumer Rights Act 2015. Those changes will be listed when you open the content using the Table of Contents below. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations


As I have stated before, the Consumer rights act is not the only law governing purchases of goods and as far as Paypal are concerned they must act on behalf of the consumer/purchaser as they are contracted to do.

You speak of the consumer act in isolation and some quote from a mirror group which I cannot honestly say I have seen, or maybe have in passing, but not quoted.

Sale of goods act, section 2, which also applies and a good reason why you never take a single piece of legislation and try to prove a point by that alone. The judge in question did apply the sales of goods act, but there is also other legislation that does apply.
(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.


As I apparently misquote, find this yourself.

Fact Paypal have reimbursed.
Fact Consumer Protection notified
Fact Office of fair trade have been given a report.

Legal instruments: Enterprise Act 2002 ('the EA'), Breach of Contract, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ('the UTCCRs'), Sale of Goods Act 1979 ('the SGA'), Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ('the CPRs'), Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 ('the DSRs'), The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 ('the ECRs'), oh yes forgot the one you keep quoting as defacto be all and end all of consumer legislation ?
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Game Refund

Postby Slavechild on Sun May 22, 2016 6:17 pm

Being unable to use google must be crippling but I'll provide you with a link to the mirror page, just this once, to make things easier.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/new-laws-give-you-power-6516875
Your quote starts with "Hiding things in the small print is now banned." and for some reason you quoted it stating "The terminology used by the judge is actually in the CRA(Consumer Rights Act)" when it isn't from what I can see find or at least in no way or forum stated like that.

That poor team must have its work cut out, I'll start linking the site where you can view the changes that have yet to be made to the PDF. The Sale of Goods Act was replaced by consumer rights act 2015 last October, so you're a bit behind the times LD.

Nice facts but you're missing Steam, are they happy about it all? I'm sure if anyone claimed under false pretenses it would be quite one sided until Steam kicked up a fuss with paypal. You can look back at my old post about Paypal.

Enterprise Act 2002 - Market Investigations, Mergers, Competition, Cartel etc. etc. (pointless tripe with regard to this thread)
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - replaced by the Consumer Rights Act (again pointless tripe with regard to this thread)
wait a second .... in fact the whole section is pasted from this office of fair trading investigation from 2011 into online online home brew websites. I actually laughed out loud when I found your quote, you have read the case? right .. Like you haven't just regurgitated some pointless information and weaved it into some sort of petty defence again have you?
Magical Facebook Fairy wrote:Image
User avatar
Slavechild
Home Member
 
Player: Slavechild
STEAM_0:1:26412177
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Hampshire



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Binerexis on Mon May 23, 2016 12:46 pm

Just for the sake of argument, let me ask this:

Is Steam at fault for not refunding you the game because it had more than 2 hours play time as per their refund policy?
"Everyone just shut up and enjoy your arena."
"...But we don't enjoy aren-"
"SHUT UP AND ENJOY YOUR ARENA!"
Image
Part three of my quest to lose my sanity

"Bin would get my Unusual hatz since he's the coolest, bravest, smartest and toughest admin." - Bruce Willis
User avatar
Binerexis
Old Timer
UKCS iSeries Attendee
 
Player: Extrodisian
STEAM_0:0:19678834
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: The North



Image

Re: Game Refund

Postby Little_Devil on Thu May 26, 2016 11:59 am

Slavechild wrote:
Being unable to use google must be crippling but I'll provide you with a link to the mirror page,

You are the one that said I stated something from the mirror group, I merely stated that you should show me where I stated that.

Slavechild wrote:
The Sale of Goods Act was replaced by consumer rights act 2015 last October, so you're a bit behind the times LD.


I do wish you would not try to cite Which because you are wrong.
You do need to read these acts to find which sections apply to any particular case, and not try to read something from some place like Which and state it as fact.
If you care to read the sale of goods act you will see the following statement, which is true.
Sale of Goods Act 1979
c. 54 Part I Section 1
1 Contracts to which Act applies.

(1)This Act applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after (but not to those made before) 1 January 1894.

(2)In relation to contracts made on certain dates, this Act applies subject to the modification of certain of its sections as mentioned in Schedule 1 below.

(3)Any such modification is indicated in the section concerned by a reference to Schedule 1 below.

(4)Accordingly, where a section does not contain such a reference, this Act applies in relation to the contract concerned without such modification of the section.

[F1(5)Certain sections or subsections of this Act do not apply to a contract to which Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies.

(6)Where that is the case it is indicated in the section concerned.]


In other words the entirety of the Sale of goods act has not been replaced at all and sections that have been amended are stated in both acts.

You really should read the acts themselves rather than try to cite from other sources.

Binerexis wrote:Just for the sake of argument, let me ask this:

Is Steam at fault for not refunding you the game because it had more than 2 hours play time as per their refund policy?


As you should know, legislation is a minimum and cannot be reduced by any term or condition drafted by any company. (there are of course agreements made in business which are legal contracts, but these are not general T & C's)
According to a QC, that is a matter for the courts to decide.

I shall now leave this thread and not read it any more. I could could write a plethora of reasons for this, but given some people are just biased then it is not worth it.

I suggest that if anyone is unsure of their rights, they should first go to the Citizens Advice, or seek legal help from one of the many outstanding Solicitors and Barristers out there, that believe in helping others, rather than making a quick buck.
Little_Devil
Exec. Admin (Retired)
 
Player: Aurora
STEAM_0:1:6431437
 
Posts: 18895
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:47 pm

Re: Game Refund

Postby Slavechild on Fri May 27, 2016 3:43 pm

Oh you can't find your quote in this thread, here it is highlighted in bold.


Little_Devil wrote:The terminology used by the judge is actually in the CRA(Consumer Rights Act)

Hiding things in the small print is now banned.
The CRA means all contracts must now clearly state the main elements of the deal and outline the price in a transparent and prominent way.
The terms must be in plain and intelligible language and, if written, in a legible format.
The terms must be prominent so an average well-informed, observant and circumspect consumer would be aware of them.
It’s now not acceptable for key terms to be hidden in pages of terms and conditions that you need a magnify glass to read. Terms other than those specifying the main elements of the contract and setting the price will seen as unfair if:
They are contrary to the requirements of good faith. They must be designed, negotiated and entered into with you in a fair and open way.


In other words any terms must be prominent at the time of purchase and with digital content, must not be hidden on other pages or links to pages.

The CRA is not the only law when it comes to contract law.

Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)
Operators should also ensure compliance with the CPRs, which cover a range of different areas, including business
to consumer contracts. They make it a criminal offence to engage in commercial practices which amount to a
misleading act or omission, where this would cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he or she would not otherwise have taken.



Shifting through all the entries stating
Subsection (1) does not apply to a contract to which Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies (but see the provision made about such contracts in sections 19 to 22 of that Act)
I would assume that "CHAPTER 3 - Digital content" of the consumer rights act would generally apply to a sale of digital content. If you want to shift through the Sale of Goods Act 1979 yourself and find something that might actually apply that hasn't been replaced by Consumer Rights Act then feel free to share your findings with us.

Some people are just biased :lol: and suggesting that people break contracts with steam, and possibly PayPal, is great advice. A good unbiased initial post would have been suggesting people purchase from steam and take into account steams refund policy and possibly their consumer rights if they apply.
Magical Facebook Fairy wrote:Image
User avatar
Slavechild
Home Member
 
Player: Slavechild
STEAM_0:1:26412177
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Hampshire



Image

Previous

Return to Gamer's Retreat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], MSNbot Media and 2 guests