Charlton's letter to a fan.

Banter with rival fans, other footie/sport and general chat.
Post Reply

Topic author
Orange Gull
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 476
Joined: 21 Feb 2015, 15:14
Location: Amsterdam

Charlton's letter to a fan.

Post by Orange Gull » 12 Aug 2016, 14:56

I know that we criticise the club for its relationship with the fan base sometimes but it pales in significance compared to something I saw earlier. Saying that you can only get your season ticket that you have paid for if you promise not to write mean things about the club is outrageous.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2016-08-12 at 14.47.23.png


Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6290
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer » 12 Aug 2016, 19:24

I was unable to read that letter, but if what you say is correct then surely it is open to legal challenge? To lay down conditions for the purchase of an item after it has been bought must breach the law of contract and/or the Sale of Goods Act?


ferrarilover
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7899
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 23:00
Favourite player: You'll find out ;-)

Post by ferrarilover » 26 Oct 2016, 18:04

There is no law of contract, as such.

The question here is whether the goods have, in fact, been sold. I'm busy, so I'll be brief:

The listing of the STs on the website/twitter etc is an ITT, not an offer.
The offer comes from the fan who contacts the club and says he'd be happy to pay the advertised price in exchange for a ST.
There's no acceptance on the part of the club until the money and goods change hands.
These new conditions represent a counter-offer, ostensibly capable of being accepted.

Matt.
J5 said, "ferrarilover is 100% correct"


Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6290
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer » 26 Oct 2016, 21:32

But surely if the money has already changed hands, then the goods become the property of the purchaser, whether or not he has taken possession of them. And apparently this all happened before the club laid down new conditions, by which time it was not entitled to do so..?


ferrarilover
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7899
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 23:00
Favourite player: You'll find out ;-)

Post by ferrarilover » 26 Oct 2016, 23:15

Ah, yes, image now displaying on phone.

It seems that the transaction has been completed.

The matey could sue for performance, if he so wished.

Matt.
J5 said, "ferrarilover is 100% correct"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests