Goods Sold on to Third Party After Payment

adh747 wrote: »

Thanks for reply.

We attempted as much mitigation as we could under the circumstances. We attempted to explain the situation we were in and asked the company to source the goods from elsewhere given the circumstances. They refused citing cost. We asked if they wanted to use an ADR but they ignored this request. We attempted to source the goods elsewhere with the minimum of extra cost and managed to negotiate a discount with the only supplier who had stock. In addition we minimised the costs incurred on us by third parties by informing them as soon as possible. However given that we weren't informed of the non delivery until the afternoon of the agreed delivery date, this was not great.

It's a matter of fact that we paid for the goods in full and the company had the goods at time of payment and also at the time of confirming the delivery date. The company then went on to sell these goods at another customer. I can't see how this is legal as the goods transferred to us at time of payment. To sell those goods on is surely misappropriation of goods.

Can you explain the definition of loss of bargain. I haven't come across this before. I've been reading the Consumer Rights Act but didn't find a reference to this term.

Under Rule 5 there are two main criteria to be assessed. The first is wherever there is unconditional appropriation. In other words, the goods in question have to be irrevocable earmarked and attached to the relevant contract. This means that there exists irrevocable identification of the goods which is beyond the power for the seller to substitute goods as seen in Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd. In Carlos Federspiel, the seller agreed to sell some bicycles to the buyer. The seller packed the bicycles and agreed to a ‘free on board'. The seller then went into liquidation. The buyers argued that the bicycles were theirs but the courts held that merely segregating the goods was not a sufficient unconditional appropriation. The second criterion is whether the appropriation was afforded with the proper assent from a party to the contract. In this case there is an unconditional appropriation because when the buyer accepts delivery it is considered assent and there actually was delivery in this case.

adh747 wrote: »

I've already had several phone calls with legal advice provided by my house insurance and also my professional Union membership. I've been told as I had no choice but to purchase from an alternative supplier, due to the circumstances, I can claim the extra costs above what I had paid for the original order. The other incurred costs should also be claimable but it may be argued that these could have been avoided, although I'm not sure how.

I'm trying to gain as much advice as possible before doing anything so I can make an informed decision. Anytime anything goes to court, the outcome is never guaranteed.