You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
neither link works for me.
I had a further email saying to copy/paste the link to ie search bar- this doesn't work either!
Not that I'm suspicious of them or owt, but if someone can post the main changes, I would very much appreciate it.
(My email to them not yet answered and can't find a link on their website either - Twats!)
I had a further email saying to copy/paste the link to ie search bar- this doesn't work either!
Not that I'm suspicious of them or owt, but if someone can post the main changes, I would very much appreciate it.
(My email to them not yet answered and can't find a link on their website either - Twats!)
Okies here they are:
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.
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 ?
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 ?
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
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.
Steve.
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.
Steve.
stevespray
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,289
- Likes
- 156
Drivethru – You certainly have some valid points in your reply which I agree with however I’d suggest that there is a lack of clarity on the part of these new T&C. I’d also suggest that it could also be argued that CMC are just seeking to remove an element of risk from their point of view, for whatever reason. 20.6, as Eminem has posted it, is vague in the extreme. Reasons for withdrawing a particular market are not listed, nor is the time period which customers will have to close out their positions. We have suggested Regus on this board because we know that there was a particular situation with that stock, the new terms and conditions do not seek to specify what particular condition would qualify the instrument for withdraw. Moving on to a legal stand point, it could be argued that, when the bet was opened (ie the forming of the contract), neither the customer or the company in question could foretell the future yet the company decided to enter into the bet and therefore expose itself to a host of potential things which could occur during the duration of the bet. It could be further argued that term 20.6 is there to remove an, as yet, undefined risk which was clearly there when the bet was opened. Therefore the customer could argue that the company was happy to open a bet when the road ahead looked good but later decided that it no longer wanted to be in the bet once the road ahead looked dodgy – this could be therefore a term which could certainly be deemed to be to the detriment to the customer and as such maybe unenforceable.
Just my opinion.
Steve.
Just my opinion.
Steve.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 7K
