Originally Posted by
dilanesp
1.
a. X made a contract with Y.
b. The contract contained a term that we will assume arguendo is mistaken. (I realize there are arguments flying around that it isn't, but I am trying to keep that point fixed so I can analyze yours.)
c. In order to obtain the mistaken contract term, X had to do two things: pay for the purchase in DKK rather than any other currency, and say that X's credit card had a Danish billing address.
d. The actual reason X chose to pay for the purchase in DKK (and perhaps incorrectly indicate a Danish credit card billing address) was to obtain the mistaken contract term.
e. However, there are other transactions in which X, and other people similarly situated, might pay or a purchase in DKK and use a credit card with a Danish billing address for reasons having nothing to do with attempting to obtain a mistaken contract term.
f. Therefore courts and regulatory agencies must ignore "d" and focus only on "e".
This is a good short version however - the address thing is still being flogged to death. All one had to do was search on Danish website and/or pay in DKK
It was not absolutely necessary to pay using Denmark in address field when paying by card no matter where you or your card are based. This would change perspective on c and e above.