Deposit paid by Card, cant get refund!!

normanmark

bert&ernie wrote: »

I think it is you thats being naive in your blinkered view that a contract is legally valid just because both parties sign it. You think of a contract as nothing more than an agreement between two entities. You fail to see that this agreement exists within a legal context. The law sets limits on what terms can and should be included within certain types of contract made under certain circumstances.

I don't believe that every financial transaction is classed as unfair practice, but unlike you, I am capable of recognising that unfair practices can occur.

A non-refundable deposit isn't unfair practice.

bert&ernie

harryhound wrote: »

Cheer up, put it down to experience.

If you were buying a house, you would most probably find you had signed an agreement and paid a non returnable deposit and the seller could later sell the house to another buyer and you would be liable for the difference (loss) due to the lower price agreed with the "second" buyer.

Let the buyer beware - even blind people have to sign on the dotted line.

Buying a car from a dealer is completely different to buying a house. The former is a consumer contract, the latter is typically a private contract.

normanmark wrote: »

A non-refundable deposit isn't unfair practice.

Again, there you go again with that sweeping, simplistic statement. I suggest you read the following then tell me precisely how you can be so sure that a non-refundable deposit isn't an unfair practice?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

You might like to take note of the following:

Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

and:

SCHEDULE 2Regulation 5(5)



INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-
...
(d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

normanmark

They made it clear in their terms & conditions, consumers have the right to either not sign it or sign it. If they were forced to sign it then yes i'd say its unfair, but its not. A consumer who was purchasing a car should be double checking what they're purchasing & what they're signing up for. Pleading ignorance isn't an excuse.

bert&ernie

normanmark wrote: »

They made it clear in their terms & conditions, consumers have the right to either not sign it or sign it. If they were forced to sign it then yes i'd say its unfair, but its not. A consumer who was purchasing a car should be double checking what they're purchasing & what they're signing up for. Pleading ignorance isn't an excuse.

So its caveat emptor as far as your concerned then? Pity the law doesn't see it your way. I've provided you with ample evidence of this - pleading ignorance isn't an excuse remember!

normanmark

bert&ernie wrote: »

So its caveat emptor as far as your concerned then?!

The penny drops. :rolleyes:

bert&ernie

normanmark wrote: »

The penny drops. :rolleyes:

I assume that glib remark is aimed at me. For the avoidance of any doubt, there is no delayed reaction on my part - my question was entirely rhetorical. Its quite clear what your argument is and I have comprehensively debunked it.

Why don't you just admit that consumer protection law supersedes the principle of "buyer beware", no matter how much you wish this wasn't the case?

To the OP - any chance of an update?