10,000 bonus points per 20 transactions

[benhadi]

As far as i'm concerned, AMEX advertised something to "lure" us into doing something i.e. change our spending patterns, etc etc which we did, under the pretext that by doing so we'll be rewarded with points. This was spelled out black and white.

NOw that we have indeed changed our spending patterns (in other words, they have achieved their goals), they are pulling our "rewards" away from us.

I can easily prove how my spending patterns have changed as a result of this promo (i.e. from a dormant AMEX account to one with many activities post signup). So as far as i'm concerned i have fulfilled my side of the bargain by spending using AMEX, and they have since acted in bad faith by not honouring what was in their original T&C.

That, my friends, i consider fraud. Misleading at the very least.

Otherwise, reverse all my transactions and i will pay using my MC or Visa.

ACCC must investigate and punish.

What ticks me off the most is, they were not even planning to inform me!

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Re: Amex tactic is to leave us in limbo untill the promo is over

I have no time for business or people who want to take me for a fool, and I do not trust companies that try to hide behind their general T&C saying "we reserve the right to do and undo as we wish at anytime"

Then why are you still spending your time in this thread? Go use your other credit cards, or pay in cash. Stop wasting your time with Amex, and stop wasting your time here.

All I am saying is,

All of which you have repeated ad nasuem - can you give it a rest please? We get the message.

 

[simongr]

No - neither of these two are valid. "Loss" and "Consideration" are terms of art in contract law, not regular English words.

A contract requires quid pro quo (something for something). That something is the consideration that you provide to the other party. What Amex earns from merchants isn't something that you have provided to Amex - but rather something from the merchant to Amex.

An "offer in the air" (i.e. the promise of a gift - e.g. additional MR points) is not a contract, and not enforceable through contract law.

Edit: removed some stuff that didn't make sense.

It's pretty arguable whether any contract was entered into here. Amex made an offer, and you relied on that offer (perhaps to your detriment), but you provided no consideration in return for what Amex offered.

You may be able to rely on equity instead (estoppel) and have Amex estopped from repudiating the offer. But estoppel isn't contract law.

AC

You could well argue that there are three parties to the transaction. Amex's offer was not some airy fairy promise/ "offer in the air" - there was a direct commitment to provide bonus points for a set number of transactions. If The offer was "join MR and you will get acess to wonderful promos full of bonus points" - that I would consider an "offer in the air" - this was a direct offer.

 

[rodgerbranch]

Food for thought

Here is some food for thought for those who whent on a shopping bonanza. Things can get a lot worst for you.

This is what customers could get by signing on a promo that had unclear or unexistant Terms and Conditions. If you think you played by the rules, then think again

You could get your card cancelled and bad Credit record

 

[equus]

No - neither of these two are valid. "Loss" and "Consideration" are terms of art in contract law, not regular English words.

The other problem is with 'loss'. The general terms of the MR program (for which you did pay a fee, and thus provided consideration), includes the acknowledgment (and you agreed to it by signing up) that "points have no value". So, the only thing you mave have 'lost' you already agreed had no value anyway!

Not suggesting AMEX would do it, but there is nothing in the T&C which would stop them advising in advance that the redemption rate for points was going up enormously (e.g. instead of 1 MR to 1 QF it will be 1,000 MR to 1 QF). They could provide 4 weeks notice of this, and then post the bonus points within the original promotion T&C 6 weeks after your transaction.

Consumer protection and/or Trade Practices are the only avenues which will regulate this sort of thing.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Hypothetical

You are running a 21st Birthday Party.

Your daughter tells all her friends to wear a red t-shirt to be let in by the bouncers.

Suddenly it dawns upon you that instead of the intead 60 guests supping at all the free grog and food that you are supplying that there are 120 or more merrily drinking away.....and indeed asking for more booze as the bathtub is now empty.

There is also looking out the door, a queue of 200 odd all wearing read t-shirts and demading to be let in.. Where's my drink they are chanting...and the Bouncers are starting to look very frazzled.


Asking a few near you about how they knew about the party. They said it was on MySpace posted by someone that just weara red t-shirt to get entra toa party with free booze!!!!

So do you:
A/ Just let the Bouncers keep admitting anyone with a red t-shirt on?
B/ Head off to the bottle shop to put a huge booze order in (though you think to yourself if I can buy it one stubby at a time on my Amex that this might actually make me 10,000,000 MR points!!!)_
C/ Say that the party is over for those inside too
D/ Try and impose modified T&C that only those with a red t-shirt on who actually know your daughter can gain entry?
E/ Try and impose modified T&C on those inside that only those with a red t-shirt on who actually know your daughter can stay...but asa good will gesture can finish their current drink?

 

[simongr]

Hypothetical

You are running a 21st Birthday Party.

< snip>

Slight amendment to make it more comparable is that you get an email every time someone reads the myspace page and replies that they are going to the party. You are getting some advance warning that things are going south so you ask your child to vouch each person coming through the door.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

The other problem is with 'loss'. The general terms of the MR program (for which you did pay a fee, and thus provided consideration), includes the acknowledgment (and you agreed to it by signing up) that "points have no value". So, the only thing you mave have 'lost' you already agreed had no value anyway!

Not suggesting AMEX would do it, but there is nothing in the T&C which would stop them advising in advance that the redemption rate for points was going up enormously (e.g. instead of 1 MR to 1 QF it will be 1,000 MR to 1 QF). They could provide 4 weeks notice of this, and then post the bonus points within the original promotion T&C 6 weeks after your transaction.

Consumer protection and/or Trade Practices are the only avenues which will regulate this sort of thing.

I think that "points have no value" is a bit of catch all that various reward programs can use to get out of situations like this.....plus when people die etc that the heirs cannot claim the points as an "asset"...because they have no value.

 

[simongr]

Re: Food for thought

Here is some food for thought for those who whent on a shopping bonanza. Things can get a lot worst for you.

This is what customers could get by signing on a promo that had unclear or unexistant Terms and Conditions. If you think you played by the rules, then think again

You could get your card cancelled and bad Credit record

Should we start with the fact that the link is to a US event and thus no real comparison to this promo or Australian laws? There is also the fact that this is not related to a promotion - just in relation to the entitlement to a business related card?

 

[AnonymousCoward]

You could well argue that there are three parties to the transaction.

Not in contract law you can't - for the purposes of consideration (which was topic we were discussing earlier). You contract with the merchant to get goods in return for payment. The merchant contracts with Amex (per the contract that they sign).

Edit: added the bit about consideration

Amex's offer was not some airy fairy promise/ "offer in the air" - there was a direct commitment to provide bonus points for a set number of transactions.

Edit: removed - comment sounded a lot worse when I reread it. Sorry simongr

An "offer in the air" is a term that describes something for nothing (there is no quid quo pro). E.g. I offer to give you $1000. That is not enforceable in contract law, because you aren't giving me anything in return. Even if you act to your detriment (e.g. go a have a celebratory drink at the pub) you can't sue me in contract for $1000. You could try estoppel though...

If The offer was "join MR and you will get acess to wonderful promos full of bonus points" - that I would consider an "offer in the air" - this was a direct offer.

Actually, that's the exact opposite. Joining MR costs you something (the annual fee). In return for that fee, Amex are promising to provide you something. You can then sue for specific performance, or you can sue for damages (assuming the other elements are met)

 

[rodgerbranch]

HA HA HA .... Good One

Hypothetical

You are running a 21st Birthday Party.

Your daughter tells all her friends to wear a red t-shirt to be let in by the bouncers.

Suddenly it dawns upon you that instead of the intead 60 guests supping at all the free grog and food that you are supplying that there are 120 or more merrily drinking away.....and indeed asking for more booze as the bathtub is now empty.

There is also looking out the door, a queue of 200 odd all wearing read t-shirts and demading to be let in.. Where's my drink they are chanting...and the Bouncers are starting to look very frazzled.


Asking a few near you about how they knew about the party. They said it was on MySpace posted by someone that just weara red t-shirt to get entra toa party with free booze!!!!

So do you:
A/ Just let the Bouncers keep admitting anyone with a red t-shirt on?
B/ Head off to the bottle shop to put a huge booze order in (though you think to yourself if I can buy it one stubby at a time on my Amex that this might actually make me 10,000,000 MR points!!!)_
C/ Say that the party is over for those inside too
D/ Try and impose modified T&C that only those with a red t-shirt on who actually know your daughter can gain entry?
E/ Try and impose modified T&C on those inside that only those with a red t-shirt on who actually know your daughter can stay...but asa good will gesture can finish their current drink?

BIG DIFFERENCE... In our case the Daugther Was at the door and told averyone they could drink as much as they wanted, because she was getting some benefit for every drink you had. She whent even further and read to all guest the conditions of entry before you stepped in.

 

[Happy Dude]

I have a feeling Gordon and Slater will want to know abt this.

Only if you pay them benhadi, but let's hope it doesn't get to that.

I find this interesting, or the involvement of any lawyers for that matter.

Just throwing a few things out there, but you'd be prepared to fund legal action out your own pocket for this? You can't pay G&S in MR points, so you'll be 'buying' your MR points anyway - if you win.

I suppose a few of the affected/disenchanted (here and elsewhere) could pool funds but it'd still be pretty costly. Can you then sue AMEX for your costs associated with the action? AMEX has deep pockets, lengthy appeals, etc...

Perhaps the ACCC or relevant authority would take up the cause on the battler's behalf?

If not, you could pay your G&S bill in increments with your AMEX! (couldn't resist! )

 

[simongr]

Edit: removed - comment sounded a lot worse when I reread it. Sorry simongr

An "offer in the air" is a term that describes something for nothing (there is no quid quo pro). E.g. I offer to give you $1000. That is not enforceable in contract law, because you aren't giving me anything in return. Even if you act to your detriment (e.g. go a have a celebratory drink at the pub) you can't sue me in contract for $1000. You could try estoppel though...

Actually, that's the exact opposite. Joining MR costs you something (the annual fee). In return for that fee, Amex are promising to provide you something. You can then sue for specific performance, or you can sue for damages (assuming the other elements are met)

My intention of the "offer in the air" was something along the lines of being offered "Join MR and earn points - occasionally we have targetted offers to extra bonnuses" and complaining that you weren't targetted.

I guess I am getting caught out like I do with US accounting occasionally - I am used (as a UK accountant) to substance over form (i.e. the substance of the transactions with the merchant is that by you buying something from them you are providing consideration to them) - whereas the American accountants are forced down the form over substance angle (leads to some very misleading accounting).

 

[NSWhere]

An "offer in the air" is a term that describes something for nothing (there is no quid quo pro). E.g. I offer to give you $1000. That is not enforceable in contract law, because you aren't giving me anything in return. Even if you act to your detriment (e.g. go a have a celebratory drink at the pub) you can't sue me in contract for $1000. You could try estoppel though...

I appreciate your effort and apparant first year university education in contract law. Unfortunately you are somewhat mistaken. Consideration includes effort and effort has been provided*. Simple.

The MySpace example is actually quite relevant because it highlights the fundamental hole in Amex's only argument (that it was targetted) and thus all the arguments that rely on it (such as not needing to notify pre 20th no-invite participants). Amex's problem is viral marketing. It doesn't matter if they wanted to target it because we reasonably assumed it wasn't targeted. Examples abound of large companies relying on free mechanisms to spread their message (including in order to provide "freebies" like this)*.

While I have your attention I may as well highlight a common flaw in the "points have no value" clause. It exists the protect creditors in case of insolvency (such as Ansett) not in cases such as this*.

Finally, while devaluation of points is an option, it doesn't take genius to reject it on the basis of cost benefit. Think of the many 000's of cardholders NOT part of this promo and their reaction.

Apologies for spelling and grammer, I'm writing this on the crackberry hile sipping on an Amex coffee....

* represent the existence of documentary evidence, including precedents.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I guess I am getting caught out like I do with US accounting occasionally - I am used (as a UK accountant) to substance over form (i.e. the substance of the transactions with the merchant is that by you buying something from them you are providing consideration to them)

When you buy something from a merchant, you are providing consideration (payment) in return for goods.

But you aren't providing consideration for anything that I can see to American Express.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I appreciate your effort and apparant first year university education in contract law. Unfortunately you are somewhat mistaken. Consideration includes effort and effort has been provided*. Simple.

Effort doing what?

There is no need to belittle my education or knowledge - just stick to the facts.

 

[AussieMark]

Interesting update - removed from bonus program

Hi Guys,

I called up on the 19th and registered through the cancellations department as I was going to cancel my card if they could not waive the annual fee. They waived the annual fee and put me into the myreward promotion.

I did receive a card in the mail.

On the 24th I called up to confirm my entry and ask whether there was a limit to the number of promotions one can be in - advised no limit to points or number of promotions if you have the codes. - Yes you are in promotion

Watched forum and decided to wait as it seemed like everyone else was calling Amex so I decided to give them a bit of a breather.

Called today - 1st Oct. - Advised I am not in the promotion and never was.....
As a gesture of goodwill they will put me in the promotion with the 10k cap and backdate me to the 24th...

The gentleman I spoke to said they had technical problems and this could have been the reason it appeared I was never entered.

 

[glass]

i think amex has every right to change T&C after Sep20, since NOBODY was able to sign up Sep20-29 in theory. Ones that somehow did my theory doesn't apply to you - but I guess you'll reply anyway eh.

Now the pre Sep20 group, can amex change T&C after the fact? Do they need to give notice? etc. Banks change T&C of accounts by giving 1mth notice, so maybe amex can too. But what notice? Now, there are no new T&C for pre Sep20, so surely stuff up to today (Oct 1) is 5k/5 uncapped. What if you called amex? If they told you then, verbally, is it notice? 90% of us haven't called. 100% haven't any letter with new T&C. Can notice be immediate? If so, is immediate now(when amex send) or now(when we rec call/mail)?

amex have cleaned up the post Sep20 group but are prolly wondering what to do with the pre Sep20 group, since some of them are doing 500 trans/mth business ppl. If they were just risking 40-50k/mth/ppl they'd just suck it up, so they're prolly working out how many 'super' users are in the pre Sep20 group and working out the cost vs court costs etc...
:shock:

 

[NSWhere]

Effort doing what?

There is no need to belittle my education or knowledge - just stick to the facts.

Mea cupla!

Poor wording, very poor wording. I meant effort to clarify things for the many of us with no awareness of law.

I sincerely apologise.

 

[straitman]

Re: Food for thought

Here is some food for thought for those who whent on a shopping bonanza. Things can get a lot worst for you.

This is what customers could get by signing on a promo that had unclear or unexistant Terms and Conditions. If you think you played by the rules, then think again

You could get your card cancelled and bad Credit record

rodgerbranch,

Why do we bother :?:

The relevance of this link in this discussion is ZERO :!:

It refers to US law which, in case you had not noticed, is substantially different to OZ law :!: