info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Crowdfunding and consumer rights
107 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Goodge
Jun 13, 2019, 10:01:23 AM6/13/19
to
How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
product in return for their funding.
Mark
For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
product in return for their funding.
Mark
Theo
Jun 13, 2019, 10:46:16 AM6/13/19
to
crowdfunded products have no contractual obligation to deliver anything: the
funder is giving some money to the fundee in the hope they will make
progress towards a goal. A gift shaped like a product might be sent to the
funder, but it might not.
The checks and balances as to whether they meet that goal and what happens
if they don't will presumably depend on the contract between the platform
and the fundee, but in general I think the platform sets it up such that
fulfilment is not part of the contract between funder and platform.
Whether any contractual relation between funder and fundee exists, and what
rights each have, will presumably depend on the platform's contracts.
I'd expect they would be written to minimise their liability.
Theo
Mark Goodge
Jun 13, 2019, 11:06:09 AM6/13/19
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:07:42 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>It will all depend on who the contract is with, surely ? If I give money
>via a 3d party to a business that fails to deliver, then where does the
>3rd parties liability stop and the failing businesses start ?
>
>Don't we have consumer credit laws about this ?
That's what I'm asking for :-)
>I'm hazarding a guess you are asking in the abstract, rather than
>referring to an ongoing case trying to decide exactly that.
I have a specific case in mind. I won't name names, but the facts can
be summarised fairly simply. A business used crowdfunding as a means
to raise the finance to produce consumer products (alongside its
normal range which were financed the normal way, from internal
investment). Some of those crowdfunded products were produced, and
there were no issues with them. However, the business subsequently
collapsed, for reasons which (AFAIK) were not directly related to any
problem with the crowdfunding itself. But this has left later
crowfunders without their goods, and they would very much like to get
back at least some of what they paid (accepting that, as creditors,
they may only get a partial refund as it depends on how much blood the
liquidators can squeeze out of that particular stone).
The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
company goes belly-up.
So I was wondering if there is any pubished case law, or guidance from
an authoritative body, on the matter.
Mark
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>via a 3d party to a business that fails to deliver, then where does the
>3rd parties liability stop and the failing businesses start ?
>
>Don't we have consumer credit laws about this ?
That's what I'm asking for :-)
>I'm hazarding a guess you are asking in the abstract, rather than
>referring to an ongoing case trying to decide exactly that.
I have a specific case in mind. I won't name names, but the facts can
be summarised fairly simply. A business used crowdfunding as a means
to raise the finance to produce consumer products (alongside its
normal range which were financed the normal way, from internal
investment). Some of those crowdfunded products were produced, and
there were no issues with them. However, the business subsequently
collapsed, for reasons which (AFAIK) were not directly related to any
problem with the crowdfunding itself. But this has left later
crowfunders without their goods, and they would very much like to get
back at least some of what they paid (accepting that, as creditors,
they may only get a partial refund as it depends on how much blood the
liquidators can squeeze out of that particular stone).
The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
company goes belly-up.
So I was wondering if there is any pubished case law, or guidance from
an authoritative body, on the matter.
Mark
Roland Perry
Jun 13, 2019, 11:21:24 AM6/13/19
to
In message <ril4ge959herr85ku...@4ax.com>, at 15:01:18 on
Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
What are the funders buying? Seems to me to more like a share, if it's
not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to deliver
each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like] then that's
probably neither considered goods nor service, but a "thing in action".
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to deliver
each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like] then that's
probably neither considered goods nor service, but a "thing in action".
--
Roland Perry
Theo
Jun 13, 2019, 11:38:23 AM6/13/19
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
> be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
> company goes belly-up.
Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
> be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
> company goes belly-up.
business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
> So I was wondering if there is any pubished case law, or guidance from
> an authoritative body, on the matter.
A gives B money. It can either be:
1. A gives B money in exchange for X.
or
2. A gives B money as a gift, not in exchange for anything.
(A and B don't have special status, such as being a registered charity)
Presumably there is case law describing how to tell the difference between
1) and 2)?
Theo
Mark Goodge
Jun 14, 2019, 5:36:10 AM6/14/19
to
On 13 Jun 2019 16:38:08 +0100 (BST), Theo
payments are final and non-refundable even if the item isn't produced.
But, as we all know, consumer protection law trumps Ts&Cs in some
cases (Ts&Cs cannot, for example, override the right to repair or
replacement on a faulty item). So we can't assume that this clause is
automatically enforceable. It all depends on what the legislation
actually says, and how the courts interpret that legislation.
So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
perspective?
Mark
<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
>> be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
>> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
>> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
>> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
>> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
>> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
>> company goes belly-up.
>
>Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
>business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
>conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
In this case, directly. And the Ts&Cs do say that crowdfunding
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
>> be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
>> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
>> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
>> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
>> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
>> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
>> company goes belly-up.
>
>Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
>business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
>conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
payments are final and non-refundable even if the item isn't produced.
But, as we all know, consumer protection law trumps Ts&Cs in some
cases (Ts&Cs cannot, for example, override the right to repair or
replacement on a faulty item). So we can't assume that this clause is
automatically enforceable. It all depends on what the legislation
actually says, and how the courts interpret that legislation.
So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
perspective?
Mark
Roger Hayter
Jun 14, 2019, 6:07:26 AM6/14/19
to
things I buy are as a consumer. But I could order ten million widgets
FOB at Shanghai docks and no-one would think that was a consumer
contract. Individuals can make business agreements. When one makes a
crowd funding agreement it could be charitable giving, a speculative
investment, or just a consumer contract dressed up as the above. I
suspect that what is being sold and how it is advertised as well as the
exact Ts & Cs may well come into whether the buyer would be protected by
the court as a consumer.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Jun 14, 2019, 7:04:50 AM6/14/19
to
In message <o9q6gel9g5uk0c2po...@4ax.com>, at 10:36:07 on
Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
>anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
>perspective?
So I ask again, is crowd funding "goods or services".
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
>anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
>perspective?
--
Roland Perry
newshound
Jun 14, 2019, 10:10:48 AM6/14/19
to
you could chase them for fraud if you could show that they bought a
yacht and made no attempt to develop a product.
Norman Wells
Jun 14, 2019, 5:21:22 PM6/14/19
to
conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
I cannot see that any contract exists between the donor and the recipient.
Of course, in clear cases, for example when there was no intention of
doing what was stated, it may be a criminal offence and fall foul of the
Fraud Act 2006.
Mark Goodge
Jun 15, 2019, 1:50:59 PM6/15/19
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:43:42 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 14/06/2019 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
Indeed. There's a real tendency in upstart businesses, particularly
among the tech community, to think that they can avoid legislation set
out in black and white by defining their business in terms of #FFFFFF
and #000000 instead. Which rarely works, because the law is,
generally, duck typed rather than static typed and a court will decide
on the basis of what can be observed rather than the terminology used.
>If a court decides it's an investment, then an investment it is. With the
>relevant legal implications.
Although in this case, if crowdfunding is an investment then that's
bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
getting some of their money back.
Mark
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 14/06/2019 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
>Yes, but as Uber are discovering you can't evade your liabilities in law
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
>by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
Indeed. There's a real tendency in upstart businesses, particularly
among the tech community, to think that they can avoid legislation set
out in black and white by defining their business in terms of #FFFFFF
and #000000 instead. Which rarely works, because the law is,
generally, duck typed rather than static typed and a court will decide
on the basis of what can be observed rather than the terminology used.
>If a court decides it's an investment, then an investment it is. With the
>relevant legal implications.
Although in this case, if crowdfunding is an investment then that's
bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
getting some of their money back.
Mark
Norman Wells
Jun 15, 2019, 3:10:43 PM6/15/19
to
On 15/06/2019 16:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 14/06/2019 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
> Yes, but as Uber are discovering you can't evade your liabilities in law
> by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
>
> by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
>
> If a court decides it's an investment, then an investment it is. With the
> relevant legal implications.
>
> As I noted upthread, courts have had centuries of practice in looking at
> relevant legal implications.
>
> a thing and deciding what it is - especially when it comes to money.
> Double especially if there is any tax possible.
>
> Of course, you may be right. In which case I shall rewrite my next
> employment contract such that I'm not being paid, but receiving an
> unconditional gift.
That's a contract. I've already said I don't think there's any contract
formed by freely contributing a sum of money to someone else.
Norman Wells
Jun 15, 2019, 4:49:11 PM6/15/19
to
On 15/06/2019 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Define "freely" ...
It's an ordinary English language word. Look it up yourself.
It's an ordinary English language word. Look it up yourself.
Tim Jackson
Jun 15, 2019, 8:07:05 PM6/15/19
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 18:50:56 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
> Although in this case, if crowdfunding is an investment then that's
> bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
> bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
> liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
> one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
> make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
> getting some of their money back.
It doesn't sound like any kind of consumer contract to purchase, but a
huge amount depends on the exact terms on which the crowdfunding is
being solicited. You've told us the Ts&Cs say payments are final and
non-refundable, but is that the full story?
Are the payments an outright gift, as Norman supposed? In which case,
why would anyone sensible send any money?
Or is it an investment with some suggestion that there could be some
kind of return if the project is successful? E.g a dividend, or a share
of the profits, or even just some products free or at a reduced price?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> Although in this case, if crowdfunding is an investment then that's
> bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
> bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
> liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
> one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
> make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
> getting some of their money back.
huge amount depends on the exact terms on which the crowdfunding is
being solicited. You've told us the Ts&Cs say payments are final and
non-refundable, but is that the full story?
Are the payments an outright gift, as Norman supposed? In which case,
why would anyone sensible send any money?
Or is it an investment with some suggestion that there could be some
kind of return if the project is successful? E.g a dividend, or a share
of the profits, or even just some products free or at a reduced price?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
tim...
Jun 16, 2019, 3:28:41 AM6/16/19
to
"Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.376f976ae...@text.usenet.plus.net...
subterfuge to try to make one look like the other. Offerers are usually
very clear about what type of "reward" can be expected for your pledge.
What is common amongst all of these models is that contractual guarantees
about how your reward is (or is not) protected are flaky to say the least
(varying from completely missing, through home made attempts to limit
liability to professional attempts to evade liability). And where the
funding has been placed through a "platform, there are two parties with
contractual clauses that might be appropriate, each quite likely to be
trying to move liability for losses to the other party.
So with all this muddle going on, it seems likely that interpretation and
validity of contractual clause surrounding such guarantees of rewards by a
court (should such a case ever get that far) would be ruled differently for
each model of investment, so cases from one model probably can't be used to
infer an interpretation for a different model.
tim
tim...
Jun 16, 2019, 3:30:42 AM6/16/19
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:gmksgp...@mid.individual.net...
without such a contract how do you determine that the offer of money is in
return for no reward?
tim
Roger Hayter
Jun 16, 2019, 3:56:23 AM6/16/19
to
your money that a court might well agree that they were unfair consumer
contracts for the sale of goods. As you say, they vary widely.
--
Roger Hayter
Norman Wells
Jun 16, 2019, 6:44:55 AM6/16/19
to
There is no 'contract' if you give a tenner to the MacMillan nurses
collector outside Tesco. There is no 'contract' if you donate money to
anything you regard as a good cause, whether it is done online or not.
These are gifts with no consideration.
tim...
Jun 16, 2019, 7:48:54 AM6/16/19
to
news:gmmg2b...@mid.individual.net...
But that's not the OP's scenario
he gave (or more probably, considered giving) the money in response to a
solicitation that did offer a consideration for that money.
If you wish to show that there isn't a contract here, then you are going to
have to show that he was not actually offered any consideration, and I don't
believe that you can do that.
Arguing about abstract non-contracts that bear no relationship to the
question helps no-one.
Of course, that doesn't mean that having constructed that contract he is
guaranteed to get, whatever it was that was offered.
tim
>
he gave (or more probably, considered giving) the money in response to a
solicitation that did offer a consideration for that money.
If you wish to show that there isn't a contract here, then you are going to
have to show that he was not actually offered any consideration, and I don't
believe that you can do that.
Arguing about abstract non-contracts that bear no relationship to the
question helps no-one.
Of course, that doesn't mean that having constructed that contract he is
guaranteed to get, whatever it was that was offered.
tim
>
Martin Brown
Jun 16, 2019, 8:18:45 AM6/16/19
to
I have known some crowd funding setups that were essentially some
enthusiasts and some fabricators who clubbed together to make for
example an exotic old design of elegant camera lens that it was thought
only a few hundred worldwide would ever want to buy. It ended very well
and the lens was delivered and AFAIK still generates orders today. It
turned out to be rather more popular after rave reviews in the press.
But if you are crowdfunding a start-up and their burn rate exceeds their
income then at some point they end up going bust before they deliver. I
don't see how you can get around this unless you pay by credit card.
>
> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
If the payment was made by credit card then it might.
> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roland Perry
Jun 16, 2019, 9:27:00 AM6/16/19
to
In message <qe5c2j$1k0c$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:18:28 on Sun, 16 Jun
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
>> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
>> perspective?
>
>If the payment was made by credit card then it might.
Is that even possible? And might rely on the project having a merchant
account (rather than the platform, because the card company may say "we
sent the money to the platform, so no case to answer").
--
Roland Perry
2019, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
>> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
>> perspective?
>
>If the payment was made by credit card then it might.
account (rather than the platform, because the card company may say "we
sent the money to the platform, so no case to answer").
--
Roland Perry
Tim Jackson
Jun 16, 2019, 10:15:26 AM6/16/19
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 08:26:27 +0100, tim... wrote...
All of which means that it is impossible to answer Mark's original
question without knowing much more detail about the case concerned.
However, these models all imply some degree of business risk, so I think
it would wrong to assume they would be covered by consumer protection
laws. Even if they were, consumer protection laws don't help much if
the business goes bust.
question without knowing much more detail about the case concerned.
However, these models all imply some degree of business risk, so I think
it would wrong to assume they would be covered by consumer protection
laws. Even if they were, consumer protection laws don't help much if
the business goes bust.
Mark Goodge
Jun 16, 2019, 2:33:53 PM6/16/19
to
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:15:11 +0100, Tim Jackson
<ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>All of which means that it is impossible to answer Mark's original
>question without knowing much more detail about the case concerned.
Not necessarily. I was asking "is there any case law?" or "is there
<ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>All of which means that it is impossible to answer Mark's original
>question without knowing much more detail about the case concerned.
any published opinion by a relevant authority or reliable
ommentator?".
Obviously, any such published material may not be entirely relevant to
the case I have in mind, because that does depend on circumstances.
But the general question can be answered without needing to know those
precise circumstances. Case law, if it exists, can be pointed to. So
can other published guidance.
Based on the responses so far, I'm beginning to conclude that there
isn't any case law or published guidance, because nobody has pointed
to any and nobody has mentioned anything that I haven't already
considered!
Mark
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 1:59:19 AM6/17/19
to
On 13/06/2019 16:06, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
> be treated as creditors.
I think the answer is "we don't know"
> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
> be treated as creditors.
--
Wm
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 1:59:38 AM6/17/19
to
On 13/06/2019 16:38, Theo wrote:
> Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
> business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
> conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
Theo is wondering about the variety of crowdfunders here
> Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
> business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
> conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
Some may be honest, others may not.
>> So I was wondering if there is any pubished case law, or guidance from
>> an authoritative body, on the matter.
>
> 'Crowdfunding' seems but a new word for an old thing.
> A gives B money. It can either be:
>
> 1. A gives B money in exchange for X.
> or
> 2. A gives B money as a gift, not in exchange for anything.
>
>
> (A and B don't have special status, such as being a registered charity)
>
> Presumably there is case law describing how to tell the difference between
> 1) and 2)?
>
> Theo
>
--
Wm
Norman Wells
Jun 17, 2019, 6:20:40 AM6/17/19
to
The difference between them is to be found in contract law under the
heading of the requirements for a valid contract to be formed. If there
is no contract, it's a gift.
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 6:21:39 AM6/17/19
to
On 14/06/2019 10:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
I think we don't know.
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 6:22:43 AM6/17/19
to
On 14/06/2019 11:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
> There is also the question of whether it is a consumer contract. Most
> things I buy are as a consumer. But I could order ten million widgets
> FOB at Shanghai docks and no-one would think that was a consumer
> contract. Individuals can make business agreements. When one makes a
> crowd funding agreement it could be charitable giving, a speculative
> investment, or just a consumer contract dressed up as the above. I
> suspect that what is being sold and how it is advertised as well as the
> exact Ts & Cs may well come into whether the buyer would be protected by
> the court as a consumer.
Should you or I know the nature of the agreement before committing to it?
> things I buy are as a consumer. But I could order ten million widgets
> FOB at Shanghai docks and no-one would think that was a consumer
> contract. Individuals can make business agreements. When one makes a
> crowd funding agreement it could be charitable giving, a speculative
> investment, or just a consumer contract dressed up as the above. I
> suspect that what is being sold and how it is advertised as well as the
> exact Ts & Cs may well come into whether the buyer would be protected by
> the court as a consumer.
It seems to me many people commit to agreements without understanding
and then want protection for their action.
How do we round this square?
--
Wm
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 6:24:58 AM6/17/19
to
On 15/06/2019 16:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:17 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 14/06/2019 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
>> I'd be surprised if the crowdfunding site did not have terms and
>> conditions specifying that any donations made through it were an
>> unconditional gift. I haven't looked but that seems a sensible and
>> obvious step to take to avoid just such problems.
>
> Yes, but as Uber are discovering you can't evade your liabilities in law
> by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
>
> If a court decides it's an investment, then an investment it is. With the
> relevant legal implications.
>
> As I noted upthread, courts have had centuries of practice in looking at
> a thing and deciding what it is - especially when it comes to money.
> Double especially if there is any tax possible.
>
> Of course, you may be right. In which case I shall rewrite my next
> employment contract such that I'm not being paid, but receiving an
> unconditional gift.
>
Don't bother, listen to the Reith lecture instead.
> by simply calling something by a different name - though many have tried.
>
> If a court decides it's an investment, then an investment it is. With the
> relevant legal implications.
>
> As I noted upthread, courts have had centuries of practice in looking at
> a thing and deciding what it is - especially when it comes to money.
> Double especially if there is any tax possible.
>
> Of course, you may be right. In which case I shall rewrite my next
> employment contract such that I'm not being paid, but receiving an
> unconditional gift.
>
Roland Perry
Jun 17, 2019, 6:58:38 AM6/17/19
to
In message <1o95qmy.19s4s5n1urmlz4N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 11:07:07 on
Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>There is also the question of whether it is a consumer contract. Most
>things I buy are as a consumer. But I could order ten million widgets
>FOB at Shanghai docks and no-one would think that was a consumer
>contract.
The test used in many circumstances ("are you a trader or not") is
whether you bought the items to plausibly use yourself, or to resell.
cf the situation with importing booze/cigs at Dover.
There's a middle situation, which is where I've found myself a few
times, which is buying lots of stuff as a genuine [prospective]
consumer, but it then turning into an "abandoned project" with the
surplus being re-sold.
Not that one is every likely to make a profit (ie recover more than
one's outlay) at that.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>There is also the question of whether it is a consumer contract. Most
>things I buy are as a consumer. But I could order ten million widgets
>FOB at Shanghai docks and no-one would think that was a consumer
>contract.
whether you bought the items to plausibly use yourself, or to resell.
cf the situation with importing booze/cigs at Dover.
There's a middle situation, which is where I've found myself a few
times, which is buying lots of stuff as a genuine [prospective]
consumer, but it then turning into an "abandoned project" with the
surplus being re-sold.
Not that one is every likely to make a profit (ie recover more than
one's outlay) at that.
--
Roland Perry
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 8:58:49 AM6/17/19
to
On 13/06/2019 16:13, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ril4ge959herr85ku...@4ax.com>, at 15:01:18 on
> Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>>
>> For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>> who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>> of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>> are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>> product in return for their funding.
>
> What are the funders buying? Seems to me to more like a share, if it's
> not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to deliver
> each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like] then that's
> probably neither considered goods nor service, but a "thing in action".
Hmmmn, if I buy 10 GBP of something like "no more charitable sex abuse"
what do I get?
I'm thinking crowdfunding is mainly a scam.
--
Wm
> In message <ril4ge959herr85ku...@4ax.com>, at 15:01:18 on
> Thu, 13 Jun 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>>
>> For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>> who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>> of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>> are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>> product in return for their funding.
>
> What are the funders buying? Seems to me to more like a share, if it's
> not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to deliver
> each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like] then that's
> probably neither considered goods nor service, but a "thing in action".
Hmmmn, if I buy 10 GBP of something like "no more charitable sex abuse"
what do I get?
I'm thinking crowdfunding is mainly a scam.
--
Wm
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 9:00:34 AM6/17/19
to
--
Wm
Wm
Jun 17, 2019, 9:00:53 AM6/17/19
to
On 15/06/2019 19:42, Norman Wells wrote:
> That's a contract. I've already said I don't think there's any contract
> formed by freely contributing a sum of money to someone else.
Has it occurred to you that you may be wrong about this as well as other
> That's a contract. I've already said I don't think there's any contract
> formed by freely contributing a sum of money to someone else.
things?
Roland Perry
Jun 17, 2019, 9:25:19 AM6/17/19
to
In message <qe7dlc$t8r$1...@dont-email.me>, at 07:57:46 on Mon, 17 Jun
2019, Wm <wm_o...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>>>
>>> For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>>> who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>>> of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>>> are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>>> product in return for their funding.
>> What are the funders buying? Seems to me to more like a share, if
>>it's not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to
>>deliver each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like]
>>then that's probably neither considered goods nor service, but a
>>"thing in action".
>
>Hmmmn, if I buy 10 GBP of something like "no more charitable sex abuse"
>what do I get?
The proposition is a bit vague. Surely there'd at least be some course
of action which was promised, even if success could not be guaranteed.
>I'm thinking crowdfunding is mainly a scam.
Mainly not. As always it's the rogues who spoil it for everyone else.
--
Roland Perry
2019, Wm <wm_o...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>>>
>>> For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>>> who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>>> of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>>> are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>>> product in return for their funding.
>> What are the funders buying? Seems to me to more like a share, if
>>it's not an outright donation. If there's a conditional promise to
>>deliver each 'shareholder' an item [call it a dividend if you like]
>>then that's probably neither considered goods nor service, but a
>>"thing in action".
>
>Hmmmn, if I buy 10 GBP of something like "no more charitable sex abuse"
>what do I get?
of action which was promised, even if success could not be guaranteed.
>I'm thinking crowdfunding is mainly a scam.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
Jun 17, 2019, 11:07:22 AM6/17/19
to
In article <ril4ge959herr85ku...@4ax.com>,
whose purpose is to fund the design and/or manufacture of goods, and
which promises goods as the primary "reward" at the relevant
contribution level, is making a contractual offer for the sale of
goods.
Often the sites' Ts&Cs or the project's small print claim otherwise
(eg that the "rewards" or promised features are a mere hope, and
contractually unenforceable, perhaps) but given that the funder is a
consumer, the Ts&Cs cannot achieve that effect.
If the primary purpose is something else, then I don't think this
applies.
However all of this is often largely theoretical. Unless the project
is an established company, by the time it becomes evident that the
project is in difficulty and isn't going to deliver, they have
typically spent the money. Ie, the vendor have gone bust.
If it was over L100 and you paid by credit card you could talk to your
card company.
Having said that I was once in this situation as a disappointed backer
where I did manage to get my money back, I think by being less patient
than the other backers.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>
>For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>product in return for their funding.
I think the normal consumer rights apply. A crowdfunding project
>How do consumer rights apply (if at all) to crowdfunded projects?
>
>For example, if a crowdfunded product fails to be produced, do those
>who have participated in the crowdfunding have any right to a return
>of the money they paid? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they
>are consumers (not businesses), and they are expecting a consumer
>product in return for their funding.
whose purpose is to fund the design and/or manufacture of goods, and
which promises goods as the primary "reward" at the relevant
contribution level, is making a contractual offer for the sale of
goods.
Often the sites' Ts&Cs or the project's small print claim otherwise
(eg that the "rewards" or promised features are a mere hope, and
contractually unenforceable, perhaps) but given that the funder is a
consumer, the Ts&Cs cannot achieve that effect.
If the primary purpose is something else, then I don't think this
applies.
However all of this is often largely theoretical. Unless the project
is an established company, by the time it becomes evident that the
project is in difficulty and isn't going to deliver, they have
typically spent the money. Ie, the vendor have gone bust.
If it was over L100 and you paid by credit card you could talk to your
card company.
Having said that I was once in this situation as a disappointed backer
where I did manage to get my money back, I think by being less patient
than the other backers.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Ian Jackson
Jun 17, 2019, 11:14:07 AM6/17/19
to
In article <1fbagetth2t9hk4k7...@4ax.com>,
widget project ("Eur50 for one widget" "Eur90 for two widgets" etc.)
is an investment, because
- it is marketed at consumers
- while there is downside uncertainty, there is no upside
uncertainty
- an investment would be characterised by legal obligations
on the investee or investment vehicle
- the touted principal benefit of becoming a funder is that
you will receive goods
What these Ts&Cs are really trying to do is simply avoid all liability
for failure to perform. Ie to pretend that the money is a gift. Now,
some crowdfunding projects *are* gifts; and some are charitable
enterprises. But a typical "make some widgets" project is not.
If it *is* an investment then it is probably an unregulated directly
marketed investment, which would probably be some kind of financial
crime or misconduct.
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed. There's a real tendency in upstart businesses, particularly
>among the tech community, to think that they can avoid legislation set
>out in black and white by defining their business in terms of #FFFFFF
>and #000000 instead. Which rarely works, because the law is,
>generally, duck typed rather than static typed and a court will decide
>on the basis of what can be observed rather than the terminology used.
...
>Indeed. There's a real tendency in upstart businesses, particularly
>among the tech community, to think that they can avoid legislation set
>out in black and white by defining their business in terms of #FFFFFF
>and #000000 instead. Which rarely works, because the law is,
>generally, duck typed rather than static typed and a court will decide
>on the basis of what can be observed rather than the terminology used.
>Although in this case, if crowdfunding is an investment then that's
>bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
>bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
>liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
>one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
>make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
>getting some of their money back.
I don't think it would be easy to persuade a court that a crowdfunded
>bad news for the crowdfunders as investors are always at the absolute
>bottom of the pile when it comes to getting any money out of a
>liquidated company. The crowdfunders would prefer their status to be
>one of having made a deposit on a contract to purchase. That would
>make them creditors, and thus offer the possibility of, at least,
>getting some of their money back.
widget project ("Eur50 for one widget" "Eur90 for two widgets" etc.)
is an investment, because
- it is marketed at consumers
- while there is downside uncertainty, there is no upside
uncertainty
- an investment would be characterised by legal obligations
on the investee or investment vehicle
- the touted principal benefit of becoming a funder is that
you will receive goods
What these Ts&Cs are really trying to do is simply avoid all liability
for failure to perform. Ie to pretend that the money is a gift. Now,
some crowdfunding projects *are* gifts; and some are charitable
enterprises. But a typical "make some widgets" project is not.
If it *is* an investment then it is probably an unregulated directly
marketed investment, which would probably be some kind of financial
crime or misconduct.
Ian Jackson
Jun 17, 2019, 11:17:09 AM6/17/19
to
In article <0i2dge9k65m6m0ngh...@4ax.com>,
established companies, which got into difficulties and where punters
got their money back, despite Ts&Cs to the contrary.
Frankly, I doubt you will find any caselaw because the legal situation
in most of these situations is far too obvious. If the backee has any
money they will pay up before it gets to court; if the backee has none
then there is usually little point the backers making any kind of
fuss.
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Based on the responses so far, I'm beginning to conclude that there
>isn't any case law or published guidance, because nobody has pointed
>to any and nobody has mentioned anything that I haven't already
>considered!
I think there have been publicly reported projects offered by
>Based on the responses so far, I'm beginning to conclude that there
>isn't any case law or published guidance, because nobody has pointed
>to any and nobody has mentioned anything that I haven't already
>considered!
established companies, which got into difficulties and where punters
got their money back, despite Ts&Cs to the contrary.
Frankly, I doubt you will find any caselaw because the legal situation
in most of these situations is far too obvious. If the backee has any
money they will pay up before it gets to court; if the backee has none
then there is usually little point the backers making any kind of
fuss.
Tim Jackson
Jun 17, 2019, 11:34:18 AM6/17/19
to
On 17 Jun 2019 16:07:08 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
> .... but given that the funder is a
> consumer,
I think that's a very big assumption.
> .... the Ts&Cs cannot achieve that effect.
> .... but given that the funder is a
> consumer,
I think that's a very big assumption.
> .... the Ts&Cs cannot achieve that effect.
>
> If the primary purpose is something else, then I don't think this
> applies.
I agree.
> If the primary purpose is something else, then I don't think this
> applies.
Norman Wells
Jun 17, 2019, 11:43:25 AM6/17/19
to
available on any good search engine. You can check if you like, but
they are not met as regards crowdfunding.
tim...
Jun 17, 2019, 12:10:11 PM6/17/19
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:96SB3HBC...@perry.uk...
It's "genuine" people not understanding how risk funding works, pricing
their offering too high, to punters who don't understand how risk funding
works either.
The platforms don't help because they "pretend" to offer a veneer of due
diligence, which IME is non existent in practice. There are some absolute
dogs on offer "validated" by the platform when nothing of the sort has
happened.
Having followed this market, more or less since inception (as a prospective
investor), the fairly normal range of 60% fail completely, but from the rest
less than 10% of offerings make a positive return with only 1 or 2 getting
the three times return that is required to pay for the losses on the
complete failures.
This is very far below normal VC expectations
Random funding across several projects is guaranteed too be loss making
(when it should not be so). Only very lucky punters come out with a profit.
Though getting actual figures is very difficult as platforms will only
reveal the success or failure of a project to investors (in that project).
Time that they are required to publish details to all comers IMHO.
tim
The Todal
Jul 3, 2019, 4:53:52 AM7/3/19
to
How can you ensure the money is not left to enrich the person who
started the crowdfund?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/17/if-doctors-have-a-duty-of-care-to-all-why-crowdfund-for-surgery
Robin
Jul 3, 2019, 6:04:19 AM7/3/19
to
in many cases is the absence of tedious stuff like not showering for a
week and hanging around outside supermarkets in the rain. Oh, and no
equivalent of the Vagrancy Act.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Jon Ribbens
Jul 3, 2019, 6:18:29 AM7/3/19
to
On 2019-07-03, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
Yes, of course, unless you consider all charity to be
> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
indistinguishable from begging.
Roland Perry
Jul 3, 2019, 7:39:39 AM7/3/19
to
In message <slrnqhp07c.6...@sable.unequivocal.eu>, at 10:18:20
on Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
>> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
>
>Yes, of course, unless you consider all charity to be
>indistinguishable from begging.
Most charity fundraising is institutionalised begging from the public;
much crowdfunding is simply a marketplace between typically less[1]
transparent and less[1] well regulated "good causes", and the givers.
(Other crowdfunding is simply a less transparent and less well regulated
form of investment in typically start-up companies.)
[1] Just like many other online activities compared to bricks and
mortar. Some used to call online the Wild West, remember.
--
Roland Perry
on Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
>> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
>
>Yes, of course, unless you consider all charity to be
>indistinguishable from begging.
much crowdfunding is simply a marketplace between typically less[1]
transparent and less[1] well regulated "good causes", and the givers.
(Other crowdfunding is simply a less transparent and less well regulated
form of investment in typically start-up companies.)
[1] Just like many other online activities compared to bricks and
mortar. Some used to call online the Wild West, remember.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jul 3, 2019, 7:39:39 AM7/3/19
to
In message <qfhvql$uh$2...@dont-email.me>, at 10:25:25 on Wed, 3 Jul 2019,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>usually different words is a big clue as to different meanings.
>
>Generally I'd say one begs for oneself, but charity is begging for
>someone else.
An awful lot of charity fundraising is to keep themselves (those
charities) in business at all; before a penny has been spent on the
good causes.
--
Roland Perry
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>
>Generally I'd say one begs for oneself, but charity is begging for
>someone else.
An awful lot of charity fundraising is to keep themselves (those
charities) in business at all; before a penny has been spent on the
good causes.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Jul 3, 2019, 7:55:04 AM7/3/19
to
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnqhp07c.6...@sable.unequivocal.eu...
collect for the benefit of someone else
whereas
crowd-funders are almost always collecting for themselves (though FTAOD not
all of them without offering some risk equity in return)
tim
Brian Reay
Jul 3, 2019, 10:11:25 AM7/3/19
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2019 16:38:08 +0100 (BST), Theo
> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
>>> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
>>> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
>>> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
>>> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
>>> company goes belly-up.
> payments are final and non-refundable even if the item isn't produced.
> But, as we all know, consumer protection law trumps Ts&Cs in some
> cases (Ts&Cs cannot, for example, override the right to repair or
> replacement on a faulty item). So we can't assume that this clause is
> automatically enforceable. It all depends on what the legislation
> actually says, and how the courts interpret that legislation.
considered fair should the matter come to court.
If, for example, it comes to light the company lacked the skills to
complete the task, didn’t even make a reasonable attempt to address this,
or had a history of such activities, it could be argued the whole fund
raising exercise was just a scam.
Of course, gathering evidence to prove the above may not be easy.
> On 13 Jun 2019 16:38:08 +0100 (BST), Theo
> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
>>> be treated as creditors. If they'd simply placed a pre-order for a
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The question, though, is whether crowdfunders are actually entitled to
>>> forthcoming product, then they would be, as they would have a
>>> contractual entitlement to that product or, failing that, to have the
>>> contract rescinded and their money returned. But crowdfunding isn't
>>> just an order placed in advance, it's a form of investment. And
>>> investors aren't creditors, and aren't entitled to anything when a
>>> company goes belly-up.
>>
>> Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
>> business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
>> conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
>
> In this case, directly. And the Ts&Cs do say that crowdfunding
>> Did the crowdfunders in question invest via a platform, or directly with the
>> business concerned? If the latter, was there a contract setting out the
>> conditions by which money changed hands, or was it implied?
>
> payments are final and non-refundable even if the item isn't produced.
> But, as we all know, consumer protection law trumps Ts&Cs in some
> cases (Ts&Cs cannot, for example, override the right to repair or
> replacement on a faulty item). So we can't assume that this clause is
> automatically enforceable. It all depends on what the legislation
> actually says, and how the courts interpret that legislation.
>
> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
>
>
The T&Cs may say whatever they like but there is the question of them being
> So the question is, does the law (either statute or case) have
> anything relevant to say about crowdfunding, from a consumer
> perspective?
>
>
considered fair should the matter come to court.
If, for example, it comes to light the company lacked the skills to
complete the task, didn’t even make a reasonable attempt to address this,
or had a history of such activities, it could be argued the whole fund
raising exercise was just a scam.
Of course, gathering evidence to prove the above may not be easy.
Robin
Jul 3, 2019, 10:29:05 AM7/3/19
to
handing money over to a person of whom one knows little or nothing, with
no means to know what happens to it (or that someone independent might
know in due course).
But I can see the force of your comment if you hold that every person
asking for money is honest and all the money will be spent on good
causes; or if you think that what really matters is what makes the donor
feel virtuous.
Martin Brown
Jul 3, 2019, 12:36:02 PM7/3/19
to
On 03/07/2019 14:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
> I raise an eyebrow at seeing volunteers raising money for free, while the
> CEOs of charities are on a (very nice) salary. It seems quite a popular
> business model these days.
What annoys me most is to see the same faces chugging for DD sign ups
with a different charity tee shirt on in pretty much the same location.
I doubt they are volunteers - they are typically paid a bonus by the
subcontracted fund raising organisation for each scalp they bring in.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/09/26/fundraising-why-charities-love-chuggers/
People have reacted against aggressive chugging by giving incorrect bank
details on the Direct Debit forms which causes problems for the charity.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240204826/Chuggers-drive-up-direct-debit-failure-and-charity-costs
There are small local charities entirely run by unpaid volunteers but
also Charities that are indistinguishable from big businesses with
salaries to match - at least for the elite few at the top.
Always worth checking on the Charities commission website what
proportion of the funds raised goes to the stated aim.
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/RegisterHomePage.aspx
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:37:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> An awful lot of charity fundraising is to keep themselves (those
>> charities) in business at all; before a penny has been spent on the good
>> causes.
>
> Well that's a different aspect ...
>
>> An awful lot of charity fundraising is to keep themselves (those
>> charities) in business at all; before a penny has been spent on the good
>> causes.
>
>
> I raise an eyebrow at seeing volunteers raising money for free, while the
> CEOs of charities are on a (very nice) salary. It seems quite a popular
> business model these days.
What annoys me most is to see the same faces chugging for DD sign ups
with a different charity tee shirt on in pretty much the same location.
I doubt they are volunteers - they are typically paid a bonus by the
subcontracted fund raising organisation for each scalp they bring in.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/09/26/fundraising-why-charities-love-chuggers/
People have reacted against aggressive chugging by giving incorrect bank
details on the Direct Debit forms which causes problems for the charity.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240204826/Chuggers-drive-up-direct-debit-failure-and-charity-costs
There are small local charities entirely run by unpaid volunteers but
also Charities that are indistinguishable from big businesses with
salaries to match - at least for the elite few at the top.
Always worth checking on the Charities commission website what
proportion of the funds raised goes to the stated aim.
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/RegisterHomePage.aspx
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Paul Cummins
Jul 3, 2019, 4:11:47 PM7/3/19
to
In article <qfi6ns$pm$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:
> The T&Cs may say whatever they like but there is the question of
> them being
> considered fair should the matter come to court.
However, fairness in legal terms is not the same as fairness in moral
> The T&Cs may say whatever they like but there is the question of
> them being
> considered fair should the matter come to court.
terms.
The T&C, for example, can lawfully restrict a party from various things,
or may say something like "no warranties, express or implied" such as
most software licence conditions do.
If the terms are clear and understandable, and "unfair" terms are well
pointed out, then a court is unlikely to find that a party, even a
consumer, should be protected from a "bad bargain" due to their own
error.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Jon Ribbens
Jul 4, 2019, 11:31:02 AM7/4/19
to
On 2019-07-03, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 11:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2019-07-03, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
>>
>> Yes, of course, unless you consider all charity to be
>> indistinguishable from begging.
>
> I do not. I also do not consider charity to be indistinguishable from
> handing money over to a person of whom one knows little or nothing, with
> no means to know what happens to it (or that someone independent might
> know in due course).
That describes both charity and crowdfunding. One *might* know
> On 03/07/2019 11:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2019-07-03, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> Crowdfunding or Begging 3.0: can you spot the difference?
>>
>> Yes, of course, unless you consider all charity to be
>> indistinguishable from begging.
>
> I do not. I also do not consider charity to be indistinguishable from
> handing money over to a person of whom one knows little or nothing, with
> no means to know what happens to it (or that someone independent might
> know in due course).
extensive information about the charity, or one might not, just
as one might or might not know much about the crowdfundee.
Robin
Jul 4, 2019, 2:21:00 PM7/4/19
to
Yes that I might know much or little about either.
No in that there are laws about UK (and indeed many other) charities.
It's news to me that crowdfunders are subject to similar requirements
when it comes to things like trustees, documented purposes and accounts.
From what I've seen if unincorporated crowdfunders seek donations* and
promise nothing it's up to them how (if at all) they tell supporters (or
anyone else) about changes and outcomes. But happy to be educated.
* ie money which is not in the nature of a loan, investment, purchase or
pre-payment
Jon Ribbens
Jul 5, 2019, 9:29:00 AM7/5/19
to
people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not
quite such a free-for-all as you make out. And of course it is up to
you how much information you want to see before you are prepared to
make a payment, just as it is with charities.
Robin
Jul 5, 2019, 10:09:05 AM7/5/19
to
On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
<https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
which includes:
"JustGiving does not represent or warrant that your donations will be
used for any particular purpose and shall not be responsible for any
dissatisfaction you may have regarding a Cause's use of any donation you
may make through the Website or its associated services or websites
powered by us or for any misuse or non-use of such donations by a Cause.
After donations are made, all further dealings are solely between you
and the Cause to which you donated."
And what they require people to provide up front has bugger all force if
it leaves people to do what they want after they have the money.
But I have no wish to press the point and shall stop now. (Much as I
have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
the homeless that charges.)
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:28:47 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>> On 2019-07-04, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>
>> On 2019-07-04, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>
> Which implies or suggests they are thus accepting some liability ...
>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>
>
I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
<https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
which includes:
"JustGiving does not represent or warrant that your donations will be
used for any particular purpose and shall not be responsible for any
dissatisfaction you may have regarding a Cause's use of any donation you
may make through the Website or its associated services or websites
powered by us or for any misuse or non-use of such donations by a Cause.
After donations are made, all further dealings are solely between you
and the Cause to which you donated."
And what they require people to provide up front has bugger all force if
it leaves people to do what they want after they have the money.
But I have no wish to press the point and shall stop now. (Much as I
have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
the homeless that charges.)
Robin
Jul 5, 2019, 10:57:35 AM7/5/19
to
On 05/07/2019 15:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
> fight) says T&Cs are not missives from God, and can be challenged in
> court.
It would help to have some clue to the grounds you have in mind.
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:08:52 +0100, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>
>> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>
>> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
>> <https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-
> service-march-2019>
>> which includes:
>>
>>
>> "JustGiving does not represent or warrant that your donations will be
>> used for any particular purpose and shall not be responsible for any
>> dissatisfaction you may have regarding a Cause's use of any donation you
>> may make through the Website or its associated services or websites
>> powered by us or for any misuse or non-use of such donations by a Cause.
>> After donations are made, all further dealings are solely between you
>> and the Cause to which you donated."
>
> But despite what anyone (in particular the company with a dog in the
>> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
>> <https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-
> service-march-2019>
>> which includes:
>>
>>
>> "JustGiving does not represent or warrant that your donations will be
>> used for any particular purpose and shall not be responsible for any
>> dissatisfaction you may have regarding a Cause's use of any donation you
>> may make through the Website or its associated services or websites
>> powered by us or for any misuse or non-use of such donations by a Cause.
>> After donations are made, all further dealings are solely between you
>> and the Cause to which you donated."
>
> fight) says T&Cs are not missives from God, and can be challenged in
> court.
It would help to have some clue to the grounds you have in mind.
Jon Ribbens
Jul 5, 2019, 4:07:46 PM7/5/19
to
On 2019-07-05, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>>
>> Which implies or suggests they are thus accepting some liability ...
>
> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
><https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
...
> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>>
>> Which implies or suggests they are thus accepting some liability ...
>
> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
><https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
> But I have no wish to press the point and shall stop now. (Much as I
> have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
> and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
> but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
> tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
> the homeless that charges.)
I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot generalise
> have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
> and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
> but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
> tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
> the homeless that charges.)
all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your example, is
for donations from people who expect nothing in return, and is used by
actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites such as
Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for their money,
and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of them, people may
well of course use the recipient's reputation (including whether or
not they are a registered charity!) when deciding whether to pay.
(And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
in public.)
Robin
Jul 5, 2019, 5:08:41 PM7/5/19
to
On 05/07/2019 21:07, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2019-07-05, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>>>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>>>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>>>
>>> Which implies or suggests they are thus accepting some liability ...
>>
>> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
>> <https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
> ....
> On 2019-07-05, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2019 14:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> The various crowdfunding sites have rules about how much information
>>>> people are required to provide to set up a crowdfund, so it is not quite
>>>> such a free-for-all as you make out.
>>>
>>> Which implies or suggests they are thus accepting some liability ...
>>
>> I see no basis for that. Have a look eg at
>> <https://www.justgiving.com/info/terms-of-service-versions/terms-of-service-march-2019>
>> But I have no wish to press the point and shall stop now. (Much as I
>> have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
>> and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
>> but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
>> tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
>> the homeless that charges.)
>
> I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot generalise
> all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your example, is
> for donations from people who expect nothing in return, and is used by
> actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites such as
> Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for their money,
> and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of them, people may
> well of course use the recipient's reputation (including whether or
> not they are a registered charity!) when deciding whether to pay.
I am sorry I did not grasp that that was your point. I would of course
>> have stopped pointing out to visitors that the people on the Underground
>> and Overground in London who very politely announce "sorry to bother you
>> but I am homeless and trying to get enough money for a bed in a hostel
>> tonight" have found something unknown to St Mungo's et al: a hostel for
>> the homeless that charges.)
>
> I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot generalise
> all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your example, is
> for donations from people who expect nothing in return, and is used by
> actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites such as
> Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for their money,
> and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of them, people may
> well of course use the recipient's reputation (including whether or
> not they are a registered charity!) when deciding whether to pay.
have readily agreed the distinction - not least because crowdfunding
loans and investments are regulated activities under FSMA.
> (And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
> site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
> involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
> in public.)
>
emails, tweets etc. - with or without links to web sites); but I'll hold
on to the hope that it's still OK to use the term if (in the classical
frame) the person seeking alms is stationary but I am moving :)
Roland Perry
Jul 6, 2019, 2:14:46 AM7/6/19
to
In message <96ba4e32-7484-2f9c...@outlook.com>, at
22:08:27 on Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:
>> I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot
>>generalise all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your
>>example, is for donations from people who expect nothing in return,
>>and is used by actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites
>>such as Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for
>>their money, and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of
>>them, people may well of course use the recipient's reputation
>>(including whether or not they are a registered charity!) when
>>deciding whether to pay.
>
>I am sorry I did not grasp that that was your point. I would of course
>have readily agreed the distinction - not least because crowdfunding
>loans and investments are regulated activities under FSMA.
>
>> (And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
>> site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
>> involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
>> in public.)
>
>I'm not sure where that leaves "begging letters" (and the equivalent
>emails, tweets etc. - with or without links to web sites); but I'll
>hold on to the hope that it's still OK to use the term if (in the
>classical frame) the person seeking alms is stationary but I am moving :)
And then there's the institutionalised begging (sometimes called
chugging) which can be quite pernicious. We could muse whether a
supermarket checkout is "in public" [it probably is] and hence whether
to include those people begging for donations if they help you pack your
bag on a Saturday morning.
From a "kickstarting" perspective, how many kids selling lemonade from
the front lawn is actually begging, rather than a genuine desire to
start a catering business? [That's more a USAian thing though]
Whenever I'm stopped in the street by someone "collecting for charity",
and they've obviously developed the skill to block people's passage, I
always say "I'll give a pound to your charity if you give a pound to
mine". Never had anyone take that up.
There's a more serious point underlying that: if someone is spending a
lot of their own time and money on supporting "their own" charity, is it
either fair, or necessary, for them to also be expected to donate money
to hundreds of random others? They could send the spare money to their
own chosen cause, at least they'll have checked out that it's being
spent wisely.
--
Roland Perry
22:08:27 on Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:
>> I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot
>>generalise all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your
>>example, is for donations from people who expect nothing in return,
>>and is used by actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites
>>such as Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for
>>their money, and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of
>>them, people may well of course use the recipient's reputation
>>(including whether or not they are a registered charity!) when
>>deciding whether to pay.
>
>I am sorry I did not grasp that that was your point. I would of course
>have readily agreed the distinction - not least because crowdfunding
>loans and investments are regulated activities under FSMA.
>
>> (And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
>> site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
>> involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
>> in public.)
>
>I'm not sure where that leaves "begging letters" (and the equivalent
>emails, tweets etc. - with or without links to web sites); but I'll
>hold on to the hope that it's still OK to use the term if (in the
>classical frame) the person seeking alms is stationary but I am moving :)
chugging) which can be quite pernicious. We could muse whether a
supermarket checkout is "in public" [it probably is] and hence whether
to include those people begging for donations if they help you pack your
bag on a Saturday morning.
From a "kickstarting" perspective, how many kids selling lemonade from
the front lawn is actually begging, rather than a genuine desire to
start a catering business? [That's more a USAian thing though]
Whenever I'm stopped in the street by someone "collecting for charity",
and they've obviously developed the skill to block people's passage, I
always say "I'll give a pound to your charity if you give a pound to
mine". Never had anyone take that up.
There's a more serious point underlying that: if someone is spending a
lot of their own time and money on supporting "their own" charity, is it
either fair, or necessary, for them to also be expected to donate money
to hundreds of random others? They could send the spare money to their
own chosen cause, at least they'll have checked out that it's being
spent wisely.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jul 6, 2019, 2:26:22 AM7/6/19
to
In message <slrnqhvbg5.6...@sable.unequivocal.eu>, at 20:07:33
on Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
>I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot generalise
>all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your example, is
>for donations from people who expect nothing in return, and is used by
>actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites such as
>Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for their money,
>and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of them, people may
>well of course use the recipient's reputation (including whether or
>not they are a registered charity!) when deciding whether to pay.
>
>(And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
>site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
>involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
>in public.)
I've only contributed to one, and that was a Kickstarter project (the
outcome of which was a film where all the contributors got was some
insight into the making, plus sight of some of the rushes). And that was
something I definitely heard about "in public", because the Internet is
part of the public space, of course.
Not a new idea, obviously:
http://internetcrimeforum.org.uk/public-private.pdf
And still hugely topical when it comes to making analogies between "a
conversation in a pub" and "posting to a forum" [OK, the technology has
moved on slightly since 2005, when Usenet would have been called a
chatroom, to include Facebook etc, but the principles are unchanged]
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
>I have been trying to get you to understand that you cannot generalise
>all crowdfunding as the same. JustGiving, to take your example, is
>for donations from people who expect nothing in return, and is used by
>actual charities as well as individuals. Other sites such as
>Kickstarter expect people to get something in return for their money,
>and is neither charity nor "begging". And on all of them, people may
>well of course use the recipient's reputation (including whether or
>not they are a registered charity!) when deciding whether to pay.
>
>(And all of this, of course, is in addition to the fact that no web
>site can ever be remotely like begging, since it cannot possibly
>involve a person physically approaching you and asking you for money
>in public.)
outcome of which was a film where all the contributors got was some
insight into the making, plus sight of some of the rushes). And that was
something I definitely heard about "in public", because the Internet is
part of the public space, of course.
Not a new idea, obviously:
http://internetcrimeforum.org.uk/public-private.pdf
And still hugely topical when it comes to making analogies between "a
conversation in a pub" and "posting to a forum" [OK, the technology has
moved on slightly since 2005, when Usenet would have been called a
chatroom, to include Facebook etc, but the principles are unchanged]
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jul 6, 2019, 9:16:07 AM7/6/19
to
In message <qfpkkn$7ns$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:03:35 on Sat, 6 Jul 2019,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>> Whenever I'm stopped in the street by someone "collecting for charity",
>> and they've obviously developed the skill to block people's passage, I
>> always say "I'll give a pound to your charity if you give a pound to
>> mine". Never had anyone take that up.
>
>That's because they don't want money. Same as the the door knockers. What
>they want is a signed direct debit mandate for a monthly amount. From
>which the chuggers employer will take a %age (and pay the chuggers wages)
>from.
Part of my mission is to expose that lie. Like the TV ads that plead for
"just £3 a month...", when really what they want is contact details to
be able to pester you to pay even more.
--
Roland Perry
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>> Whenever I'm stopped in the street by someone "collecting for charity",
>> and they've obviously developed the skill to block people's passage, I
>> always say "I'll give a pound to your charity if you give a pound to
>> mine". Never had anyone take that up.
>
>they want is a signed direct debit mandate for a monthly amount. From
>which the chuggers employer will take a %age (and pay the chuggers wages)
>from.
Part of my mission is to expose that lie. Like the TV ads that plead for
"just £3 a month...", when really what they want is contact details to
be able to pester you to pay even more.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Jul 6, 2019, 2:01:15 PM7/6/19
to
news:ejlZBSd4...@perry.uk...
Surely that's an MO that has now been closed down by the new code of conduct
introduced after that Poppy seller killed herself
tim
introduced after that Poppy seller killed herself
tim
Roland Perry
Jul 7, 2019, 7:04:59 AM7/7/19
to
In message <qfqf7l$7ns$2...@dont-email.me>, at 15:37:25 on Sat, 6 Jul 2019,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> [quoted text muted]
Only if you are one of those chuggers. But I was trying to agree with
you.
--
Roland Perry
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> Part of my mission is to expose that lie.
>
>Am I being accused of lying ?
>> Part of my mission is to expose that lie.
>
Only if you are one of those chuggers. But I was trying to agree with
you.
--
Roland Perry
Wm
Jul 7, 2019, 10:48:06 AM7/7/19
to
On 17/06/2019 16:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <0i2dge9k65m6m0ngh...@4ax.com>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Based on the responses so far, I'm beginning to conclude that there
>> isn't any case law or published guidance, because nobody has pointed
>> to any and nobody has mentioned anything that I haven't already
>> considered!
>
> I think there have been publicly reported projects offered by
> established companies, which got into difficulties and where punters
> got their money back, despite Ts&Cs to the contrary.
>
> Frankly, I doubt you will find any caselaw because the legal situation
> in most of these situations is far too obvious. If the backee has any
> money they will pay up before it gets to court; if the backee has none
> then there is usually little point the backers making any kind of
> fuss.
>
Surely some of those people (incorrectly) think they are making an
investment and (possibly) presume they have some sort of investment
protection?
Aside: not me, whoever it is.
--
Wm
> In article <0i2dge9k65m6m0ngh...@4ax.com>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Based on the responses so far, I'm beginning to conclude that there
>> isn't any case law or published guidance, because nobody has pointed
>> to any and nobody has mentioned anything that I haven't already
>> considered!
>
> I think there have been publicly reported projects offered by
> established companies, which got into difficulties and where punters
> got their money back, despite Ts&Cs to the contrary.
>
> Frankly, I doubt you will find any caselaw because the legal situation
> in most of these situations is far too obvious. If the backee has any
> money they will pay up before it gets to court; if the backee has none
> then there is usually little point the backers making any kind of
> fuss.
>
Surely some of those people (incorrectly) think they are making an
investment and (possibly) presume they have some sort of investment
protection?
Aside: not me, whoever it is.
--
Wm
Roger Hayter
Jul 7, 2019, 10:48:22 AM7/7/19
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 11:40:56 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In message <qfpkkn$7ns$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:03:35 on Sat, 6 Jul 2019,
> > Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
> >
> >> [quoted text muted]
dishonest practices by charity fundraisers upon which you remarked.
--
Roger Hayter
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 11:40:56 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In message <qfpkkn$7ns$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:03:35 on Sat, 6 Jul 2019,
> > Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
> >
> >
> > Part of my mission is to expose that lie.
>
> > Part of my mission is to expose that lie.
>
> Am I being accused of lying ?
Speaking as a neutral third party, I took Roland to be referring the
dishonest practices by charity fundraisers upon which you remarked.
--
Roger Hayter
Wm
Jul 7, 2019, 10:48:50 AM7/7/19
to
On 17/06/2019 16:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What these Ts&Cs are really trying to do is simply avoid all liability
> for failure to perform. Ie to pretend that the money is a gift. Now,
> some crowdfunding projects *are* gifts; and some are charitable
> enterprises. But a typical "make some widgets" project is not.
My thinking
> If it *is* an investment then it is probably an unregulated directly
> marketed investment, which would probably be some kind of financial
> crime or misconduct.
Ummm, there are some that aren't :)
--
Wm
> What these Ts&Cs are really trying to do is simply avoid all liability
> for failure to perform. Ie to pretend that the money is a gift. Now,
> some crowdfunding projects *are* gifts; and some are charitable
> enterprises. But a typical "make some widgets" project is not.
My thinking
> If it *is* an investment then it is probably an unregulated directly
> marketed investment, which would probably be some kind of financial
> crime or misconduct.
Ummm, there are some that aren't :)
--
Wm
0 new messages