Second, what is the “cash award” by the supplier? There are financial limits for covered transactions s.75 (1). S.73 (3) provides for exceptions, notably in paragraph (b) (as amended by the Consumer Credit Regulation (raising monetary limits) of 1983 (SI 1983/1878): (a) a limited-use credit contract under Section 11, paragraph 1, point a) or 7. For the purposes of Section 6, point (c), subsections 2 to 5 of Section 16B (the debtor`s statement on the purposes of the agreement) apply. What if I agree to buy 300 bottles of a wine a little less than Mouton-Rothschild for 100 dollars a bottle, and I use a credit contract? The wine turns out to be vinegar, the winemaker made a runner, and I now want to sue the financial company. I can`t go below the s.75A because the current value of the goods is 30,000 USD, which is below the minimum value set by s.75A (6) (b). And I can`t go below s.75, because the claim refers to (300) individual items, to which the supplier has a price that does not exceed 100 dollars (it could be different if I had bought 25 cases for 1,200 dollars per case). Article 15, paragraph 2, of the directive required me to have the right to follow the bank in this situation (the total amount of credit was in the range of 200 to 75,000 euros), and yet the combination of ss.75 and 75A does not provide me with any remedy. What I don`t think, “Cash Price,” is the price before discounts. The cash price of a single item must be the price to be paid by the customer (without any financing). I do not see a legislative purpose in using a price that is neither charged nor paid.
The use of such a price would create considerable uncertainty, not least because the retail price is often in motion in these days of technology. What discounts are included if you want to exclude discounts? The ones who volunteered with the merchant? The ones the client insisted on? Were they negotiating? (b) the bound credit contract applies to credits greater than $60, $260 or the first question, so it was very clear that a duty could relate to several elements within the meaning of s.75 (3)) b). This must result from the wording “to the extent that the claim relates to a single point.” The paragraph distinguishes between, on the one hand, the whole claim and, on the other hand, the elements of what it considers. The terms “to the extent” and “refer” mean that we are not dealing with the breakdown of the claim, but with the breakdown of the deliveries to which it relates. The term “special point” does not apply the rule of interpretation on page 6 (c) of the Interpretation Act of 1978, namely that the words in the singular contain the plural, since it is a contrary intention: the imputation of “single” with “item”. I was wondering if the phrase “to which the supplier was attached” could make sense. This suggests a unilateral measure and could support an argument that it is the “ticket” or “label” price before the event. But what I think is the distribution of the price in cash and the financial price in cases where there is a written financing agreement.