Are the Argos delivery T&Cs legal?

Money_Saving_Dude

This page (http://www.argos.co.uk/static/StaticDisplay/includeName/TermsAndConditions.htm) has the following clause:

3.3 Risk of loss and damage of products passes to you on the date when the products are delivered or on the date of first attempted delivery by us.

(My emphasis.)

Can they say this? If you are not in, or otherwise not available when they try to deliver your order, why then should you become liable for damage to the goods when you have no control over them?

Also, if the order is over £100 will this clause be irrelevant if purchase is made by credit card, as the insurance on the card should cover it?

It seems to me that this is unreasonable, and would therefore be unenforceable under the unfair terms and conditions act, or whatever it's called. Is that a fair assumption?

I would be interested to hear any comments on the points above.

TIA.

jonesMUFCforever

I believe it is an unfair clause and it is not enforceable in law.
However as you are now aware of this clause and you still order the goods are you deemed to have accepted it??

hippey

It doesn't look unfair as it is very clear, and quite enforcable. I would suggest if your not happy to accept it then don't purchase from them.

The attempted delivery clause also covers items / appliances where people purchase them but they find they don't fit, or they squeeze them through doors and walls etc.... damaging them.

The american style fridge as an example, far to big for many homes!

It could be argued that they should take reasonable care of the goods in thier possesion, i.e. in the case of a failed delivery, but they will be covering all options.

Money_Saving_Dude

Thanks for the response. I never read it to mean someone was in and the fridge -- or whatever -- didn't fit (I have one of those fridges and we had to dismantle parts of the house to get it in).

Taken from that perspective it reads differently. I was viewing it as they couldn't deliver it and took the goods back to the depot; but in so doing damaged them and then blamed the purchaser. That to my mind is clearly unfair.

I appreciate the responses.

Thanks folks.

dmg24

Money_Saving_Dude wrote: »

Thanks for the response. I never read it to mean someone was in and the fridge -- or whatever -- didn't fit (I have one of those fridges and we had to dismantle parts of the house to get it in).

Taken from that perspective it reads differently. I was viewing it as they couldn't deliver it and took the goods back to the depot; but in so doing damaged them and then blamed the purchaser. That to my mind is clearly unfair.

I appreciate the responses.

Thanks folks.

If they have to take it back to the depot then they are in effect storing the item for you i.e. ownership has now passed to you, they are just providing a courtesy by keeping it until a later date. Therefore, so long as they take reasonable care with the item, it is quite reasonable for risk to pass at the relevant time.

Mr._H_2

dmg24 wrote: »

If they have to take it back to the depot then they are in effect storing the item for you i.e. ownership has now passed to you.

I can't get my head around this point of view. How can you deem the ownership to have been transferred if no one was in to take delivery? Are you proposing that as soon as the item comes within some definable radius of the destination property, ownership is transferred? Seems very bizarre to me.

If you've ordered an item from Argos via their website, then the distance selling rules apply and this clause is in clear contravention of said legislation.

See here and here.

overlander

Ignore it not worth the paper its wrote on, many of these private contracts are completly unenforcable. They have to fall under the law they just cannot make their own laws up, most companies have them and most folk go along with them but ultimately come dispute time the law of the land takes over. Distance selling regulations state that the seller has a duty to ensure delivery within 30 days. If this is not achievable then the contract must be terminated and the customer refunded. Refusal of deliver is as good as terminating the contract and you must also be refunded. So junk just ignore it.

overlander

Just reading some of the replies some people really need protecting from themselfs, lucky you have distance selling regulations, imagine if a firm could just turn round and say attempted delivery mate then it got stole sorry you need to buy another one :-)

YorkshireBoy

There could also be some conflict with the preceding condition 3.2 if delivery is attempted outside their "estimated timescales", ie much later in the day when an am delivery slot was quoted, and the customer is not in.

Ilian2008

'They have to fall under the law they just cannot make their own laws up'

I think a lot of legislation only applies subject to what is contained in the contract. For instance, S.12-15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 cant be excluded by the terms of the contract but other clauses can.

I think it would be terrible goodwill for Argos to enforce this. They never come when they say they are going to come in my experience anyway

overlander

Contract law can only be in addition to British law and must fall within the law. So anything which contradicts distance selling regulations is total rubbish. But you are right they would never try and enforce it goodwill alone, never mind that it would be laughed out of court. But what a strange clause.