Threatening Letter from LFI

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK i give up you are a better lawyer than i am.

 

Mostly at the wrong end...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gvaliquette]

Such a big tempest!

 

Such a small tea cup!

 

Believe it or not, I have read each and every of the 81 preceding posts!

 

What a waste of time!

[Edward Louis Marit]

As I was not given terms, have not received any magazines since my subscription expired and did not sign anything or check any boxes they have no justification for this letter. And yes, I went through my email archives to determine what I actually agreed to.

Regardless of whether they are in the right , it is poor public relations and ridiculous posturing as 15 minutes of any lawyers time or court filing fees will easily exceed the 79 euros claimed. I appreciate the point that you and Jaapv have made, however I did not agree, even unwittingly to a subscription contract.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

Such a big tempest!

 

Such a small tea cup!

 

Believe it or not, I have read each and every of the 81 preceding posts!

 

What a waste of time!

Of course it is a load of twaddle The fun is in the verbal fencing

[IkarusJohn]

Actually it does, if you read the agreement (and a subscription is an agreement) you will find that it stipulates that German law will apply, just as an agreement made in the UK will stipulate that British law will apply. If it were otherwise it would be near impossible to have international contracts.

You will find in cases like this that most countries will facilitate other countries through international agreements. If a German court ordered payment it would be simple to collect the money - plus total costs- through a court in Canada or the UK for that matter. Notorious exceptions are for instance Japan (totally impossible to get your money through legal complexity) and Italy (you will get your money but it will take 12 years) However, for smaller sums most creditors will not take the trouble and risk of costs in case of non-recovery.

 

Coming from the other side of having to be paid for my services, there is nothing absurd in the situation. This is perfectly normal business practice, the only hitch being that the OP did not realize that a subscription with a German publisher constitutes a contract that has to be cancelled to end.

 

 

I'm not sure where you get this stuff from Jaap.  It is said with such confidence, yet it is so wrong from so many different levels.

 

The only effective means of settling international disputes (i.e., dispute between companies and citizens from different States) is by international commercial arbitration.  If you get an arbitration award in your favour, you can enforce that award in just about any country around the globe under the 1958 New York Convention (156 signatories, and only 40 non-signatories).  The equivalent treaty for the enforcement of foreign judgments, the 1971 Hague Convention, has 5 signatories - Albania, Cyprus, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Portugal.  That's it.  It's a flop, compared to the NY Convention.

 

Of course, in Europe the Brussels Regime provides for the enforcement of judgments within the States which accede to that regime, and here in NZ we have mutual recognition of Australian judgments, but as a matter of international law, the enforcement of judgments from one State to another is a matter purely of treaty, and it is surprisingly rare.  Global trade thrives on arbitration, not court cases.  I'm not aware of any mutual enforcement treaty between Germany and Canada, and with Brexit looming, I sorely doubt there is one in place between Germany and the UK.

 

I guess the point you seem to be determined to gloss over with your bluster is (1) what does the contract actually say, and (2) even if it states that "German law applies", that is largely irrelevant to the applicable consumer protection legislation in the country where the contract is made.  If the OP ordered the magazine outside of the EU (where there is a considerable level of harmonisation of consumer protection legislation), the German terms and conditions will be interpreted by that law.  I believe even German law would do the same (though I have never had to look at this) - the applicable law is the law where the person making the order was situated.

 

Now, if I ordered LFI from here in NZ and the contract actually says that German Law applies and that LFI would continue to supply me with magazines, whether I paid for them or not, and I stopped paying but LFI kept sending them, and they sued me for the subscriptions here in NZ (no point in doing it in Germany where I have no assets), the courts would look at the contract and say, yes German law applies (as a matter of freedom of contract).  But, that would not override the NZ consumer protection legislation which applies to the contract as I am based here - you cannot contract out of consumer protection legislation here or in most other places.

 

LFI could issue proceedings against me in Germany, and they would need to prove service and compliance with all the procedural requirements of the German Civil Code, and I would not participate.  LFI might get judgment against me (I would have no idea as I am not in Germany and can't read German).  LFI would then need to enforce that judgment in NZ against me - that would never happen.  There is no mutual enforcement treaty between NZ and Germany that I am aware of.

 

Now, I appreciate that all of this is extremely far fetched for 79 Euro.  But there is a point (Michael) - if you sell a magazine for 6.49 Euro per edition, and 79 Euro per year (or whatever the price is), you rely on turnover.  Selling as many magazines as you can, and as the subject matter is so limited, you want a good relationship with Leica camera owners.  Even if you feel legally right and justified, why write letters to members of that community threatening legal action over what can only be one or two issues?

 

If it were me, I'd want a GOOD relationship with ALL Leica owners, and I would send out a reminder (much like the Economist does to me) saying that my subscription is about to expire on the next issue, or the next but one.  I'd send a further reminder, and if payment wasn't made, I'd stop sending the magazine out with the last issue and I'd cancel the subscription, with a nice letter or email saying we hope to see you again soon.  Sending out magazines to people who apparently don't want them and forcing them to pay with threatening letters seems a pretty poor business model.

 

Just saying ...

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[earleygallery]

Contract law, as I understand it, is essentially based on there being a fair exchange.

 

In this case the OP didn't pay to renew a magazine subscription and LFI didn't send him any magazines.

 

Essentially there was no contract.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course it is a load of twaddle The fun is in the verbal fencing

Lots of fun, except for the fact that if anybody feels threatened for whatever reason that should have been be the main concern before descending into jollity. Instead very quickly we're told in all seriousness that LFI have a computer they can't control and had nearly all 999 pages of German contract law explained in defence of said computer. So unintentionally funny yes, but verbal 'fencing' I don't think so, more like a Berlin Wall of denial.

 

There is a theatre tradition in the UK called 'The Whitehall Farce', comedies in which the most absurd of the characters always end up with their trousers round their ankles and hiding in wardrobes due to moral confusion and misreading of the situation. And as all theatre programmes will say (in their version of LFI small print) 'Any similarity between the characters and real people either living or dead is purely coincidental'.  

 

 

Steve

Edited August 26, 2016 by 250swb

[jaapv]

Come on, Steve, read post #5. The OP doesn't feel threatened...

[lct]

[...] There is a theatre tradition in the UK called 'The Whitehall Farce', comedies in which the most absurd of the characters always end up with their trousers round their ankles and hiding in wardrobes due to moral confusion and misreading of the situation. [...]

 

Reminds me of Alfred Jarry's « Ubu Roi » (King Ubu).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubu_Roi

Just kidding but behaviors like this were considered obsolete when i began my lawyer's career 30+ years ago.

Now it's King Ubu in Jurassic Park

Edited August 26, 2016 by lct

[edwardkaraa]

In my case, I did subscribe to LFI twice in this lifetime. On both occasions, it was a one year subscription. On both occasions, I received an invoice for the subsequent year. On both occasions, I ignored the first invoice, then after receiving the reminder, I emailed them asking to cancel the subscription, which they immediately obliged, acknowledged with an email regretting loosing me as a client, and offering me a few incentives to remain.

 

What I don't like in this story is that they sent me an invoice that I didn't ask for, and an invoice has to be paid, legally. You can't just choose to ignore an invoice. The reminder is also very clear. You have an unpaid invoice. Period.

 

With my other magazine subscriptions, either I receive a reminder that my subscription will expire soon, and directing me to the renewal page, or I do receive an actual invoice, in which it clearly says that I have no obligation to pay it, and in case I don't, the subscription will be discontinued after a predetermined date.

 

I much prefer these last 2 approaches, and I have always felt uncomfortable upon receiving LFI invoices. This is something they should really reconsider.

[Guest]

...

If it were me, I'd want a GOOD relationship with ALL Leica owners, and I would send out a reminder (much like the Economist does to me) saying that my subscription is about to expire on the next issue, or the next but one.  I'd send a further reminder, and if payment wasn't made, I'd stop sending the magazine out with the last issue and I'd cancel the subscription, with a nice letter or email saying we hope to see you again soon.  Sending out magazines to people who apparently don't want them and forcing them to pay with threatening letters seems a pretty poor business model.

...

 

 

...

With my other magazine subscriptions, either I receive a reminder that my subscription will expire soon, and directing me to the renewal page, or I do receive an actual invoice, in which it clearly says that I have no obligation to pay it, and in case I don't, the subscription will be discontinued after a predetermined date.

 

I much prefer these last 2 approaches, and I have always felt uncomfortable upon receiving LFI invoices. This is something they should really reconsider.

 

Just this way the here hated "subscription trap" works as an unserious business model:

Publishers hope that subscribers don't think about the end of their subscriptions and forget to cancel in right time.

The bill for the then automatically prolonging subscription will be sent during the next reference year, when the deadline for a timely termination has already passed.

So publishers hope that subscribers will find pleasure again in reading their journals and maintain their subscriptions - or forget next year again to cancel in time?

What a short-sightedly uneconomic thinking!

 

Gentlemen, please insist on the better consumer protections of your countries, no matter how many feet of small print clauses you did not have time and desire to read before you signed.

[lct]

[...] an invoice has to be paid, legally [...]

 

Never seen such a law so far. What they call an invoice is nothing but a computer file or a sheet of paper they don't have the least proof of even sending it to you, let alone of your acceptance. Suffice it to treat it as a spam. Don't reply, forget it and nothing will happen.

[Manoleica]

My usual response to crap/junk mail is as follows:- scrawled across their paperwork:- I'm in prison till 2075 (double murders) therefore No Credit Cards, No Cash & No Future,, feel free to send any reading material -> FREE OF CHARGE,, thank you.,

Edited August 26, 2016 by Manoleica

[Edward Louis Marit]

Come on, Steve, read post #5. The OP doesn't feel threatened...

No not threatened, just offended.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pop]

 

Just this way the here hated "subscription trap" works as an unserious business model:

Publishers hope that subscribers don't think about the end of their subscriptions and forget to cancel in right time.

The bill for the then automatically prolonging subscription will be sent during the next reference year, when the deadline for a timely termination has already passed.

So publishers hope that subscribers will find pleasure again in reading their journals and maintain their subscriptions - or forget next year again to cancel in time?

What a short-sightedly uneconomic thinking!

 

Gentlemen, please insist on the better consumer protections of your countries, no matter how many feet of small print clauses you did not have time and desire to read before you signed.

 

Not only do I endorse reading the terms before subscribing, I also endorse doing so before criticizing. Did you notice that the terms explicitly state that you can cancel the subscription at any time after the initial one or two year term? Or that they will reimburse you for the issues up to the end of the year?

 

I readily agree that for some people "opting in" is more convenient or seems to be more fair than the "opting out" model chosen by LFI. However, it's not the kind of trap you make it appear to be. It's just a perennial subscription which has to be explicitly cancelled for termination. I can imagine fairly well the outcry of other members were LFI to simply stop sending new issues when the subscription expires; and the hue and cry about the bother and the cost of procuring the missed issues.

[lct]

[...] Did you notice that the terms explicitly state that you can cancel the subscription at any time after the initial one or two year term? Or that they will reimburse you for the issues up to the end of the year? [...]

 

Did you sign any document stating that you accept in advance the contract renewal? If so, would you mind to quote the acceptance wording here? Just curious.

[pop]

Did you sign any document stating that you accept in advance the contract renewal? If so, would you mind to quote the acceptance wording here? Just curious.

Yes, I did. Not because I am particularly fond of this kind of contract (which I am not) but because not closing the contract would be less attractive than the mild inconvenience of thinking of cancelling in time. Heck, there are so many deadlines spread all over the year that entering a couple more into the agenda is not the hardship some here make it appear to be.

 

The most recent ones are with Deutsche Bahn and Swiss Federal Railways. I know that I had a subscription for  LFI for some short time; I don't remember the terms in force at that time, but I don't recall it being particularly difficult cancelling the subscription, either.

 

I had linked to the subscription terms for the LFI right on the first page of this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263758-threatening-letter-from-lfi/page-1?do=findComment&comment=3100453. If you actually look at the terms you will see right away that it's not meters long as some will have it here.

[jaapv]

Actually, it is a two year subscription which can be cancelled at rather generous terms after the two years. So ignoring the automatic renewal and subsequent bill is not very smart. (but I did so myself ) as one is entitled to a cancellation with refund by a simple email.

 

It is nothing like the way some posters represent it.

 

 

 

Length of the subscription:
You initially subscribe to LFI for two years (16 issues). All subscriptions have an automatic renewal function which means your subscription will keep running for as long as you wish. It is therefore not necessary to order new subscriptions after the 2 years. Renewal payments can be made via our renewal page.

Subscriptions can be ended anytime after the second year. Advanced payments for undelivered issues will be refunded.

Please note that cancellations must be received in writing (email, fax or post) or submitted via our contact form.

 

The only hitch is that some countries have a habit of lapsing subscriptions and others of active cancellations.

 

As for the wording of the letter, once again a German would think nothing of it, as Germany has a rather legalistic tradition. I still remember  with some amusement when living there that some newspapers had a section with recent court rulings and there are more  small Lawyers' offices than Supermarkets in any town. (There are even more Apothecaries though )

 

I think, that considering the international character of the magazine, LFI should tone down the letter a bit and ask for either their money or an active cancellation, quoting their conditions instead of referring to them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

I have a background in consumer protection. The normal applicable law is that of the consumer's country. Where LFI is making an even bigger mistake is in trying to enforce German law outside of Germany. This is not a good way to build up a global brand and represents a poor attitude towards its own customers, whatever the 'small print' might say. That being said, last year I ended up with two LFI subscriptions as they had delayed in sending me my renewal notice and I had started an online subscription. This meant I was getting two copies every month. A nice email to LFI resolved the issue in no time at all. So maybe they can learn that being nice to their customers will actually help with their brand image.

 

William

[jaapv]

That is what they do all the time. The only mistake they make is sending a German-type letter. Not surprising, given the "quality" of their translation department.