From: "Rhoy the Bhoy" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance ie.general uk.legal
Subject: Re: Tried to cancel MBNA credit card
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 19:30:03 +0100

>> In message , Rhoy the Bhoy
>>  writes
>>>> Well we seem to have reached an impasse then. Your theory
>>>> destroys the integrity and acceptability of Credit Cards.
>>>
>>> How so ?
>>
>> Because a merchant has to be confident that if he follows the CCo's
>> procedures he WILL get his money, not MIGHT get his money and the
>> customer needs to be able to walk out of the shop, as it were,
>> with the goods immediately on payment, not after the payment has
>> been 'cleared'.

A merchant in that situation can indeed have such confidence. My
"theory" has no real application thereto.

I thought that we were discussing the issue of whether a CC co could
legitimately tell the cardholder that no cancellation of a
transaction, especially one covered by a "standing order" (however
labelled), is possible unless contact is made with the merchant by the
cardholder. Related to this is the assertion that a credit card
company can refuse to close an account.

I say that, in the absence of a clear and unambiguous consent by the
cardholder to the term, any term in the credit card contract which
could be interpreted as justifying the above behaviour would, at a
minimum, fail the Interfoto test (aka the attention test).

That test says that a contract term which is onerous or unusual is not
enforceable unless the party that drafted the contract brought the
term to the attention of the other party.

If the credit card contract has no such term, and mine don't appear to
have, then there is no legal basis at all for such conduct by the CC
company.