1.1 We have clarified the fact that the End User Licence for our trading software forms part of the Agreement between us.
6.6 We have inserted a new clause to clarify the fact that we may avoid any purported contract based on a price which results from an alteration or modification of our trading platform in a way not authorised by us.
18.2(c) We may charge an administration fee in the amount of £200.00 upon the occurrence of each Specified Event.
20.6 We have inserted a provision to clarify the fact that we may cease to offer bets in a particular underlying at any time. However, before we do so, we will give you prior notice specifying the date before which you should close out all your open bets in relation to that underlying, failing which we will close out those remaining open bets positions ourselves.
1.1 - no comment needed
6.6 - so a hack is out of the question then??
18.2 - dunno what the original referred to, have to have a look, prob wont affect me tho (he said hopefully)
20.6 - another one sided change to hinder the punter and line the pockets of CMC...alledgedly.
20.6 has potential for trouble. If it refers to the fact that they will drop a particular instrument at some point in time,fair enough,but alongside that do they give some form of minimum notice term which would give players notice either not to get in ,or reasonable notice to get out of a trade?.
In addition, from the transcript given is there any reason that may not be simply interpreted to mean that CMC have the right to refuse any bet ,on anything, at any time ? If they can then presumably that means you can only guarantee to close out an open bet by taking the closing position with another SB ?
Looks to me like 20.6 is a kneejurk reaction to the Regus saga. I'm think I'm right in suggesting that Regus suggested to all shareholders that they contact their brokers and request that their shares be made unavailable for 'stock lending'. The effects seemed two fold, 1) A short squeeze - the price rises, 2) No stock was available to short sell so the spreadbet companies were unable to hedge short positions.
Again I would ask the question "Is this another attempt by the spreadbet company to remove an element of risk on their part ?" Surely they need to determin their risk at the time they enter into the contract with the customer and not use someking of 'harry hindsight' method. If I was forced to close an open position I would challenge them on it. It would be very easy for the punter to argue that term 20.6 was unfair to the detriment of the consumer and therefore invalid as it was not individually negociated.
I too was unable to view either link, but on asking D4F they sent me PDF & Word attachments yesterday (with the full terms of business & the changes respectively), without delay. If your links still don`t work, then I suggest you ask D4F for the same.
I too had problems with the link but got it to work by copying and pasting to my browser address bar. You must copy up to and including ".PDF" though - this bit was not underligned by my email client (outlook express).