can i have my money back?

shaun_from_Africa

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.

Best you tell that to all airlines and travel agents who accept non refundable deposits.
If the contract need to be concluded before it is binding, and you think it is not concluded because the goods haven't yet been supplied, why can't people cancel their flights and holidays and receive all of their money back if they change their mind?

bookworm1363

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Best you tell that to all airlines and travel agents who accept non refundable deposits.
If the contract need to be concluded before it is binding, and you think it is not concluded because the goods haven't yet been supplied, why can't people cancel their flights and holidays and receive all of their money back if they change their mind?

Because the company's T&Cs clearly state what are the scales of refunding/no refunding, and a consumer agrees to these when he purchases the goods.

Mark_Hewitt

somethingcorporate wrote: »

This is simply not true, can you please provide something to back it up? A contract is binding at agreement not at conclusion.

Aye, however in this case the contract is implicit, and thus the only penalty for failing to fulfil the contract is for the purchaser to be put back into the position they were in before contract was formed, i.e. given their money back.

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Because the company's T&Cs clearly state what are the scales of refunding/no refunding, and a consumer agrees to these when he purchases the goods.

And if they are not explicit then they do not exist aside from "default" contract terms (which is not that the purchaser can change their mind!).

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

Aye, however in this case the contract is implicit, and thus the only penalty for failing to fulfil the contract is for the purchaser to be put back into the position they were in before contract was formed, i.e. given their money back.

On what basis?

The contract has been agreed with standard terms (as none other were presented at the time of purchase) and this is by default no returns unless faulty.

If the OP breaks this contract by not fulfilling the retailer can sue the OP for damages as to their loss which would be the profit on the shoes. Obviously they wouldn't for a couple of quid but the principle still holds.

midget_gems

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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??



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.



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.



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.



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.

FINISH HIM!
<Mortal Kombat theme music is playing in the background>

bookworm1363

:rotfl: Well, this would be funny if it wasn't so bad.

Trying to play who's got the biggest ego, bless. You win, you definitely have the biggest ego. As for the rest, you are so mistaken that I don't know where to start, but I'll try.

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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 to get out more.

Caselaw: WS Karoulias v The Drambuie Liqueur Company Ltd.

Lord Clarke concluded that "(...)the law still provides that parties to a complete agreement might stipulate for themselves, either expressly, or
impliedly, when, and under what circumstances, the terms of the agreement will be binding in law. They may indeed do so to produce the kind of certainty that avoids disputes about what was agreed between them".

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.

But NOT completed. Which is what I have been saying, highlighting and repeating. What part of "not completed" was unclear to you?

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??

Apologies, I did write the "binding" part in error, not what I meant. What I meant was that it may be binding, but it wouldn't be enforceable if and when OP cancelled prior to completion. And funnily enough, as you yourself quoted, seller could only claim for genuine losses, so you've just answered a few more of your own arguments there. The seller can not penalise the buyer for cancelling unless she has suffered a real loss, and even then can only recover her actual losses, which she would have to substantiate, which leads us to your next funny bit:

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.

Accounting for the insane! :rotfl:

Unless seller shuts down shop and on final stocktaking finds that she has a pair of X sized shoes left, and NEVER sold another pair of shoes of that same size since our OP cancelled, ONLY at that point would she have suffered a true loss. Genuine pre-estimate of loss doesn't cover for "well, I COULD have sold more pairs". It's actual losses that get compensated, not guesswork based on how many more pairs she might or might not sell. There's plenty of case law to support that as well.

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.

or not fit for purpose, as described or of satisfactory quality actually. but these only kick in once the contract has been completed, so yes completion very much matters! but in this instance, as OP cancels before completion, SOGA doesn't apply.

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.

Awww bless, can't you actually respond without insults or snidey comments? Doesn't do much for your credibility I'm afraid.

Anyway, you can presumably show me caselaw to support THAT little gem? About the different set of rules? Because what you're saying is that you turn up to the till with a £5 TV instead of £500 you've picked off the shelf, they will HAVE to sell it to you? Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear , oh dear. :rotfl:

Again, wrong. At exchange of contracts both parties are committed to purchasing/selling the property.

Hmmm, funny, explain gazumping, please? "committed" yes. But if one of the parties cancels, the other side STILL can only recover their losses, and only if they signed a contract stipulating what those would be.

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.

You got ONE correct at last. Well, partly correct, only applies to business to consumer, not B2B, but since this one of those cases, I won't be too hard on you for not being specific.

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

At LAST a valid bit of advice!!!

It goes without saying that people should ALWAYS do their own research before acting on advice given over the Internet. Still, no harm in repeating it.

"somethingcorporate", any chance your name indicates as to where your loyalties lay, hence explaining that, erm, "interesting" take on this type of case?

Freddie_Snowbits

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Because the company's T&Cs clearly state what are the scales of refunding/no refunding, and a consumer agrees to these when he purchases the goods.

Though I am carded for calling anotehr poster the said, please take this post as the most utter complete CODSWALLOP I have had the privillege of reading for a while.

Unless the goods are faulty or not fit for purpose, OP is not entiltled to a refund at all. Any additional terms are at the discretion of the seller, and most is goodwill rather than a right.

Mods, please could we now have a CODSWALLOP button

bookworm1363

midget_gems wrote: »

FINISH HIM!
<Mortal Kombat theme music is playing in the background>

"HER" actually.

Great help to the OP here, well done, are all of your 13 posts that informative?

midget_gems

bookworm1363 wrote: »

"HER" actually.

Great help to the OP here, well done, are all of your 13 posts that informative?

yes. yes they are.

bookworm1363

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Though I am carded for calling anotehr poster the said, please take this post as the most utter complete CODSWALLOP I have had the privillege of reading for a while.

Unless the goods are faulty or not fit for purpose, OP is not entiltled to a refund at all. Any additional terms are at the discretion of the seller, and most is goodwill rather than a right.

Mods, please could we now have a CODSWALLOP button

And presumably, instead of your usual OPINION, you can prove this? Or have you bothered researching the case law *I* quoted to support my stance? Hmmm, thought not.

You are entitled to your opinion. Without backing evidence, it's only the opinion of a nobody off the Internet against the opinion of another nobody off the Internet. The difference is I supply case law for people to go and find out for themselves who's right.

In the end, if OP gets scared by the likes of you and doesn't claim her money back, that is her choice, no skin off my nose. If she follows my advice, she stands to get her money back.

To OP: Sadly these boards have become playing grounds for people who think that if they shout loudest, it lends them more credibility. I'm afraid I don't do p***ing contests, so I shall leave you with my previous posts and explanations, it is up to you how you want to proceed, always. Good luck whatever your choice (although if you could let us know what happened in the end, that would be great though not compulsory!)

Bookie, out! :wave: