ttj - Tom Jones

My second breakfast on the Condor ferry from Poole to Guernsey this morning would have been around 7 GBP.  Then it was around 16 GBP.  I looked at the screen to see what was up.  The employee said something like "when you're ready", pretty aggressively, to apply pressure. I found the mistake, two fake sandwiches at 4.50 GBP each, resulting in an overcharging of 9 GBP, or around 129%.  I said there are things on there not on my tray.  Employee listed a load of breakfast items, aggressively.  I asked where are those sandwiches.  Employee realised their "mistake" and apologised and removed the items, and did not look up again for the rest of the transaction. Similarly for adding fake items as with short-changing: if a vendor makes a "mistake" that would favor them by +X, it is not good enough to rectify this to favoring neither party by zero.  The correct remedy would be to favor the other party by X, and the vendor by -X.   If the vendor t...

I previously wrote of how bad traders Amazon UK and / or PAM-TECH have failed so far to refund money paid for a product delivered physically damaged and operationally dead-on-arrival. I think Amazon claim that they are not party to such orders, merely operate a marketplace, and that the contract is between the buyer and purported seller. If this is to be true, then it should be clear at every stage not only that the seller is a separate entity, but also the exact legal identity of that entity.  This includes the jurisdiction in which the seller is based, the full business name and registered office address, or person's name and address if sold by an individual.  There must be enough information to serve legal papers on the seller, should a dispute arise.  If the seller is in a different jurisdiction from the main Amazon subsidiary purporting to operate this "marketplace" (in this case Amazon UK), then this should certainly be made clear to the prospective buyer. In this o...