Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Fluffy Cats and Dogs

Re: Fluffy Cats and Dogs

Postby Peter and Luke » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:07 pm

hehe very good!!

I can well imagine.
Peter and Luke
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:27 am

Re: Fluffy Cats and Dogs

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:06 pm

7.11. The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would be required to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer's Group against all actions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities suffered or incurred, and all fines, compensation or remedial action or payments imposed on or required to be made by the Company following and arising out of claims or complaints registered with the FSA, the Financial Services Ombudsman or any other Authority against the Company, the Sellers or any Relevant Person and which relate to the period prior to the Completion Date pertaining to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance related product or service.


Capita's construction
Capita, he recorded, contended that the clause should be read as follows:

"The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would be required to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer's Group against

(1) all actions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities suffered or incurred, and

(2) all fines, compensation or remedial action or payments imposed on or required to be made by the Company following and arising out of claims or complaints registered with the FSA, the Financial Services Ombudsman or any other Authority against the Company, the Sellers or any Relevant Person

(3) and [in each case] which relate to the period prior to the Completion Date pertaining to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance related product or service."

Under this interpretation Capita would, in principle, be entitled to recover what it had had to pay as compensation for the mis-selling on the footing that such compensation constituted a loss, cost, charge, expense or liability suffered or incurred within [1].

Mr Wood's construction
Mr Wood, the judge recorded, submitted that the clause was to be read in the following way:

"The Sellers undertake to pay to the Buyer an amount equal to the amount which would be required to indemnify the Buyer and each member of the Buyer's Group against

(1) all actions, proceedings, losses, claims, damages, costs, charges, expenses and liabilities suffered or incurred, and

(2) all fines, compensation or remedial action or payments imposed on or required to be made by the Company

[in each case] following and arising out of

claims, or

complaints registered with the FSA, the Financial Services Ombudsman or any other Authority

against the Company, the Sellers or any Relevant Person

and [in each case] which relate to the period prior to the Completion Date pertaining to any mis-selling or suspected mis-selling of any insurance or insurance related product or service."
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Fluffy Cats and Dogs

Postby atticus » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:22 pm

The more I read it, the more I favour Capita's interpretation.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18639
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Fluffy Cats and Dogs

Postby diy » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:45 am

Was there a PPI style claim back for customers in this scam? Looks pretty damming for the brands involved. I've always be sceptical of aggregators.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Previous

Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron