XPost: aus.legal, scot.legal   
      
   While I started composing this, I remembered that, years ago I had also   
   emailed a copy to Ms. P. de Lille: a copy of my 'report of how a Sheriff   
   auction sales in Boksburg had been fraudulently conducted'.   
     So since you too, had reported your matter to Ms. P. de Lille, did we both   
   mistakenly think, in those days, that she would do something about the   
   injustice?   
      
   This relates to my previous post, about the legal-fora which operate in more   
   advanced societies, and are better than 'letters to the editor', for citizens   
   to contribute to societal improvement. Here's an example of how USEnet works:-   
      
   Subject: Bank sharp-practices outlawed?   
      
   Some time back I read that a UK Court had found the sharp-practice by   
   Virgin Atlantic as being illegal. VA used to automatically extend the   
   expired membership of victims. Results could be that when a previous   
   VA member left the country for 3 years, they would find, on returning   
   that they had a bill for "3 years services rendered".   
      
   Where/how would I find the exact wording of the judgment that outlawed this   
   sharp practice, and related cases?   
      
   Would the following be considered as sharp practice and outlawed?   
      
   The bank advertises a '12 months fixed interest product' targeted at senior   
      citizens.   
   Since elderly people shouldn't be living from hand to mouth, they shouldn't   
     need to have set an alarm clock, to warn them of pending maturity dates.   
      
   The investment matured in October, and the victim visited the bank on   
     28 December, and because of the potential problem of Xmas rush time, the   
    victim put his instructions in writing: one copy to be signed & date stamped   
    by the bank.   
      
   The bank told him that since he had failed to notify the bank in time,   
    he could not have the money. So the victim said "OK, just sign and stamp   
    my copy of the instructions", which the bank official hadn't seen before the   
    verbal refusal, "and we'll resolve this in writing".   
      
   Because of the bank's refusal, the victim canceled his arrangements/plans   
    and suffered consequent damages.   
      
   Later he received email correspondence from the bank, with a copy of the   
   3-and-half A4 pages of small print, listing sections 1 to 21.7: "Terms   
   and conditions of Investment Account". The email cited S 8.2 "Early   
   withdrawal penalty fee...".   
      
   Although not mentioned in the bank's excuse for refusal to pay out, laborious   
   examination of the copy of the "Terms and conditions of Investment Account",   
   shows:   
   S 20.2 "On maturity of the investment the client should advise the bank in   
   good time (from at least one month before the expiry date) with regard to   
   the payment of the capital and/or reinvestment thereof". [sic]   
      
   Given that the investment offer was ADVERTISED in the press as a 12 months   
   'competitive investment product' what are the estopple implications of   
   forcing the victim to know and understand all the sharp-practice details   
   of the some (36 * 7= 252) compact-line contract?   
      
   "12 months fixed investment" should imply that 'negative option marketting   
   tricks' will not apply. Or ?   
      
   If the 'contract was 252'000 lines instead of 252, would it still be   
   enforceable?   
      
   What about consumer protection legislation - of recent years?   
      
   == TIA.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)