ChatterBank0 min ago
Effectively affected
13 Answers
I was completing an on-line application / contract for a mobile telephone the other day, for which I will be paying by direct debit.
I encountered the section offering optional insurance, under which was a footnote which stated;
"If you do not wish to take up this insurance, your direct debit will not be effected" [sic]
So when (or if) I take up the offer, and decline the insurance, will they be in breach of contract when they take money out of my account or is it a case of someone not being able to spell?
:o)
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brachiopod. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They�re dropping themselves right in it, with their own small print, so technically you�d be within your rights to cancel the DD after setting it up. When they question you about it, point out that you didn�t think it was needed any further since, as the contract clearly stated, it would not be �effected�. Might be worth trying it on with them � you never know, they might appreciate the fact that you�re pointing out their mistake for them and give you a couple of months line rental free.
Actually, on second thoughts it�s probably not worth the effort, they won�t have a clue what you�re talking about�
Whilst you are being a pedant i must delve even deeper into pedantry.
It is not strictly a spelling mistake just a mis-use of a word.
You make a good point though and would have great admiration for you if you do challenge the legality - there have been precedents for this in the past so you may have a case but do you have the money or resources to persue this and what, if it, could you gain from it (apart from a great deal of satisfaction)?
Perhaps a friendly email to the firm in question might be a better course of action.
The government has a whole department for reading through green and white papers to make sure this sort of thing doesnt happen (but obviously not phone companies)
It is not strictly a spelling mistake just a mis-use of a word.
You make a good point though and would have great admiration for you if you do challenge the legality - there have been precedents for this in the past so you may have a case but do you have the money or resources to persue this and what, if it, could you gain from it (apart from a great deal of satisfaction)?
Perhaps a friendly email to the firm in question might be a better course of action.
The government has a whole department for reading through green and white papers to make sure this sort of thing doesnt happen (but obviously not phone companies)
As the song goes:
"What a difference an 'A' makes...."
(or something like that)
Thanks all, just to clarify, Lankeela, (and no singling-out-to-cause-you-offence intended), the Direct Debit, as gb says, had already been referred to, so I pondered the fact that a one-letter difference could cause such a complete reversal in meaning.
I don't even want a moblee-bloody-phonee, but I feel like taking this one up just to be (as snook and gb say) a pedantic git !!
I personally belive that it is a mistake and that they actually mean 'affect' - but, hey, you only need to go to any AB topic when the kids are posting their homework questions asking "what affect [sic] does X have on Y...etc..."
Should I go for it anyway ? Just to see what happens? (Promise to keep you posted....?)
Oh I just love this discourse. I think he should test it out. I can't believe this must have gone past several desks without anyone spotting it. Just like the massive sign in all the newly kitted out Boots stores that says 'Stationary' ... unless of course they mean that the shelves in that section never move !
1 to 13 of 13
