Rights if 18866 suspend service incorrectly?

>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:25:32 +0100, Lem <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>You're not doing your homework are you?

On 18 May 2006, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, but the difference between you and I is that I understand what
> the things mean, and you don't seem to.


I don't think you can read, mate. I gave not one but two links to the
booklet and you still reply to ask me dumb questions which are in black
and white either in the booklet or on the web sites.

Before you reply to something why don't you read it?


"Yes, but the difference between you and I is
that I understand what the things mean, and you
don't seem to."

I don't think you can write, mate. You try to write posh but you don't
know how. "Between" is never followed by the nominative, you twat.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0081645.html
www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang002.html


"Yes, but the difference between you and I is
that I understand what the things mean, and you
don't seem to."

You are Humpty Dumpty and I claim my fiver! :-)
http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

---

› See More: Rights if 18866 suspend service incorrectly?

Alex Heney <[email protected]> writes:

> And I believe that the UK courts work on the basis that where a
> transaction takes place remotely across national boundaries, it is the
> jurisdiction of the consumer that counts for where it took place.

Is the law consistent on that? I believe, that for customs/VAT
purposes, when you make on online transaction that it is the purchaser
who is considered to be the importer of the goods/services. For this
to be correct, the transaction must have taken place at the location
of the supplier. If the transaction takes place at the location of the
consumer then the supplier would be doing the importing when
(metaphorically) coming to the consumer's country in order to perform
the transaction.

On Fri, 19 May 2006 06:58:50 +0100, Graham Murray
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> And I believe that the UK courts work on the basis that where a
>> transaction takes place remotely across national boundaries, it is the
>> jurisdiction of the consumer that counts for where it took place.
>
>Is the law consistent on that?

Probably not. Tax law is quite often different to other laws.

>I believe, that for customs/VAT
>purposes, when you make on online transaction that it is the purchaser
>who is considered to be the importer of the goods/services. For this
>to be correct, the transaction must have taken place at the location
>of the supplier. If the transaction takes place at the location of the
>consumer then the supplier would be doing the importing when
>(metaphorically) coming to the consumer's country in order to perform
>the transaction.
>

It is the supplier who is supposedly liable for VAT on purchases of
non physical goods/services.

Where the goods are physically imported, HMRC charge whoever they can
for the taxes due. Which normally means (assuming they spot it at all)
they do not release the items until the tax is paid by *somebody*.
They don't actually care who.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can't write, write manuals.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 18 May 2006, <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:40:16 +0100, Alex Heney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>1. Which government? What has UK law got to do with a foreign
>>>company?
>>>
>>
>>If the sale is taking place in this country, then UK law applies.
>
> 18866 are not in the UK, and the sales is not in the UK.
>

This guy gets me. 18866 may take "is" or may take "are". I prefer
"is".

But this twat switches from "are" to "is" in the space of 8 words.
Maybe he forgot the first one because it was so long ago.

And the meaning is wrong.



>>>2. The DSR primarily refers to selling goods, not services.
>>
>>It applies equally to both.
>
> No. It applies to both, but not equally.
>>
>>However, there are exceptions for the right to cancel where the
>>service has actually started being provided, with the customer's
>>agreement.
>
> Indeed, but that's not relevant here, because there is no "line
> rental" to worry about. A customer can cancel at any time by simply
> ceasing to use the service.
>
>>> If you
>>>don't like the service 1866 sells you, how would you send it back
>>>in a saleable, unmarked condition so they could sell it to someone
>>>else?
>>
>>You just cancel and don't use it.
>
> That does not get your money back.
>

That is because you didn't ask about that to satrt with. You asked an
entirely different question.