can i have my money back?

josyd

Just some advice please. I needed some dance shoes at the weekend for my daughter so went to the local supplier, they had the style she needed but not the size so they were ordered for us. The lady asked me if i wanted to pay then or when i picked them up and i paid £43 on my debit card. When my daughter went to class on monday, she discovered she didnt need the shoes after all so i went back to the shop but they are saying as they have already been ordered they will only give me a credit note! As far as i am concerned i didnt have to pay for the shoes there and then and am now being penalised for that! Can anyone advise me what to do next ???

McKneff

The fact is that you did pay for them so it was a sale.
The shop was under no obligation to accept the shoes back let alone give you a credit note so i would accept it with good grace,

I know what youre saying but there really is nothing you can do about it.

josyd

i havent actually got the shoes yet do you think that makes any difference?

neilmcl

Unless you can find some fault with them, then no.

bookworm1363

Nonsense. They're not specially ordered, and they'll sell them just like any other, there is no reason whatsoever for you to accept a credit note. You haven't actually bought the goods, you put a deposit down (of 100%, granted), and unless they have a written cancellation policy which they should have warned you about in the 1st place, then you can't be held to ransom by terms you were not made aware of.

Go back, ask her where it shows in their T&Cs that refunds on goods which haven't actually been delivered yet can only be refunded by credit note, and if there is such a policy why didn't she tell you this before you parted with your money?

From a legal point of view, you are rescinding the contract before it was completed, she is not suffering any loss (assuming she didn't order them specially but that they will come as part of the regular delivery), she has been inconvenienced by ordering one more pair of shoes which as a retailer I'm pretty sure she must be used to, she has no legal ground whatsoever to make you accept a credit note.

Be nice, but firm so that she knows that you are not going to get fobbed off.

Freddie_Snowbits

Unless the items are not fit for purpose or faulty, then I am sorry but you are not entitled to a refund

MyRubyRed

You are not entitled to a refund

bookworm1363

You are all mistaken, it's not a refund on goods, it's the refund of a deposit on goods, as I said earlier unless they have a published policy explaining cancellations and losses of deposit, then the retailer hasn't got a leg to stand on.

It's exactly the same as booking a restaurant, and paying a deposit to secure your place, and choosing from the menu at the same time. Most places will state that you forfeit the deposit if you cancel. Most hotels will issue a 100% refund up to a certain date etc...

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

You are all mistaken, it's not a refund on goods, it's the refund of a deposit on goods, as I said earlier unless they have a published policy explaining cancellations and losses of deposit, then the retailer hasn't got a leg to stand on.

It's exactly the same as booking a restaurant, and paying a deposit to secure your place, and choosing from the menu at the same time. Most places will state that you forfeit the deposit if you cancel. Most hotels will issue a 100% refund up to a certain date etc...

How does paying in advance make it a deposit on goods?

The contract of cash for (the promise of) goods has been agreed - the OP is not entitled to a refund.

And the retailer has lost out on the profit on those shoes, so saying they have lost nothing is wrong.

Edit: and they don't need to make you aware of any cancellation rights as the applicable rules would be statutory.

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

How does paying in advance make it a deposit on goods?

The answer is in your question: If you pay in advance for goods you don't have, how can it be anything but a deposit? The payment secures the promise of supplying goods/service to come.

The contract of cash for (the promise of) goods has been agreed - the OP is not entitled to a refund.

Incorrect, the contract needs to be concluded for it to be binding. OP hasn't got the shoes, contract is not concluded, Op can cancel and get refund in full. Simple.

And the retailer has lost out on the profit on those shoes, so saying they have lost nothing is wrong.

Incorrect again. retailer is highly likely to sell the shoes anyway, in the unlikely case she doesn't, then one could argue that she might sue OP for the difference between retail price and her profit on the shoes, but in reality, she can not do so because, see above, OP has the right to cancel since the contract has not been completed.

Edit: and they don't need to make you aware of any cancellation rights as the applicable rules would be statutory.

sorry, that doesn't even make sense. :huh: Statutory rights would be the usual not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, not as described, none of which apply here, and it's irrelevant because, watch my lips, all together now: the contract has not been completed yet!


It's the same principle that people post asking about all the time, they place an order online, make payment, retailer then realises they've made a pricing mistake and cancel the contract and refund buyer. They can do this, and so can OP.

Or at the other end of the scale, people pulling out of selling their house. Even when the contracts are exchanged the sale can still fall through, only on the day of completion is the contract concluded. There may be financial penalty clauses in the contract to compensate the other party, but you'd have to write them in the contract. You can't take someone's money in exchange for something without telling them that they'll never see it again if an issue arises (from either side). Trying to do that would then fall foul of the UTCCR.

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Incorrect, the contract needs to be concluded for it to be binding. OP hasn't got the shoes, contract is not concluded, Op can cancel and get refund in full. Simple.

This is simply not true, can you please provide something to back it up? A contract is binding at agreement not at conclusion. This is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard!

You need 4(ish) things to form a contract:

Consent: (to OP and the Retailer agreed to enter into the contract).

Ability: They could both enter into it.

Agreement: They agreed the price for goods exchange. (Offer and Acceptance).

Consideration: The OP paid cash the Retailer promised goods.

The above all occurred so the contract was binding.

You say it's only binding on conclusion is just tosh I am afraid. That means if I pay for a 12 months gym contract it is not binding until the year is over??

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Incorrect again. retailer is highly likely to sell the shoes anyway, in the unlikely case she doesn't, then one could argue that she might sue OP for the difference between retail price and her profit on the shoes, but in reality, she can not do so because, see above, OP has the right to cancel since the contract has not been completed.

Wrong again.

Scenario 1: OP buys shoes, another person buys a pair - 2 sales.
Scenario 2: OP renegs on agreement, person buys a pair - 1 sale. Simple maths, they have lost a contractually agreed sale hence lost profit.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

sorry, that doesn't even make sense. :huh: Statutory rights would be the usual not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality, not as described, none of which apply here, and it's irrelevant because, watch my lips, all together now: the contract has not been completed yet!

Completion doesn't matter since the OP has contractually agreed to complete the purchase. If there are not additional terms offering cancellation rights those that govern normal SOGA etc apply. No rights to cancel unless faulty.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

It's the same principle that people post asking about all the time, they place an order online, make payment, retailer then realises they've made a pricing mistake and cancel the contract and refund buyer. They can do this, and so can OP.

Urgh, you are so wrong here. This is governed by the Distance Seling Regulations which is completely different to the SOGA. Now you are just showing how little you know.

Due to the automation of internet purchases and the inability to inspect goods etc there are a different set of rules.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Or at the other end of the scale, people pulling out of selling their house. Even when the contracts are exchanged the sale can still fall through, only on the day of completion is the contract concluded. There may be financial penalty clauses in the contract to compensate the other party, but you'd have to write them in the contract. You can't take someone's money in exchange for something without telling them that they'll never see it again if an issue arises (from either side). Trying to do that would then fall foul of the UTCCR.

Again, wrong. At exchange of contracts both parties are committed to purchasing/selling the property. Hence the stories of house builders suing buyers that cannot raise funds etc.

Edit: Additionally, you cannot have financial penalty clauses in a contract, they would be invalid terms. You can only have a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Where did you get your contract law knowledge from?

Please OP, do a bit of research before taking the advice of this poster.