In message <39DC7631.DBC241E3@aargh.franken.de>, Marc
<marc@AARGH.FRANKEN.DE> writes
>> As I remember from about a year ago now, BT Cellnet were paying about 50
>> UKP for their pre-paid mobile phones, they then sold them to a
>> supermarket chain for 30 UKP who sold them to the customer for 40 UKP.
>> So far the supermarket has made 10 UKP and BT has lost 20 UKP, the
>> customer then sells the phone (minus the simm card) elsewhere in Europe
>> for around 80 UKP - the customer has now doubled his money, and BT are
>> still down 20 UKP with no chance of making any call revenue as it's no
>> longer used on the BT network.
>
>This example shows it pretty well.  The loss is more loss of expected future
>revenue instead direct loss of money.  Imagine that BT sues the customer, and
>imagine further that they win (which I doubt).  The customer then gives 20 UKP
>of his 40UKP to BT to cover their damage.  And he still has 20UKP win left.
>And the supermarket can keep his 10UKP win.

There was no chance no BT suing, one of the snags with the scheme was no
check of name or address, you just paid cash and took the phone - you
didn't even have to give your name!.
--

Nigel.

        /--------------------------------------------------------------\
        | Nigel Goodwin   | Internet : nigelg@lpilsley.co.uk           |
        | Lower Pilsley   | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.co.uk       |
        | Chesterfield    | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit   |
        | England         |                 Ju Jitsu                   |
        \--------------------------------------------------------------/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics