can i have my money back?

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

On what basis doesn't it apply? Is it from the same legal source that says contracts are only binding at completion?

Oh yawn. I've already covered both of these in my previous posts, do you just disagree for the hell of it without actually reading them?

To save you the brain strain, here it is, again:

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 (...)

and

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.

More specifically, how can SOGA rules of fit for purpose/reasonable quality/as described apply when OP hasn't had a chance to examine the goods and see for herself that they do comply? Think about it!

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Oh yawn. I've already covered both of these in my previous posts, do you just disagree for the hell of it without actually reading them?

To save you the brain strain, here it is, again:

and More specifically, how can SOGA rules of fit for purpose/reasonable quality/as described apply when OP hasn't had a chance to examine the goods and see for herself that they do comply? Think about it!

No, I disagree because you are wrong!

Are you saying SOGA stops applying as soon as the purchaser receives the goods and the contract is concluded?

The conforming to the SOGA is a process that gives the purchaser a "reasonable" amount of time to confirm that they comply, it's not complicated. Until this time the purchase is still covered by it!

bookworm1363

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But if a company's T&C are in breech of UK law then those T&C's are invalid and legally unenforcable.
So if what you say is correct in that the contract has not been concluded and the OP is legally entitled to a full refund because they have not received their shoes, then the same conditions must apply to the examples that I gave. (flights and holidays).

Even if a customer agrees to a term in a contract, they can not sign away their statutory rights.

you understand the basic principles, but you are reaching the wrong conclusion:
"But if a company's T&C are in breech of UK law then those T&C's are invalid and legally unenforcable". <--- correct (broadly speaking)

"So if what you say is correct in that the contract has not been concluded and the OP is legally entitled to a full refund because they have not received their shoes, then the same conditions must apply to the examples that I gave. (flights and holidays)." <--- Incorrect. it is not unlawful for a company to specify in their T&Cs that they will withhold 10, 50, even 100% of monies already paid in case of cancellation, but, and this is the crux, they MUST make you aware of it before you sign.

In the above case, retailer asked OP if she wanted to pay now or later, and didn't make OP aware of the consequences if she decided to cancel. It is therefore unfair by default (so to speak) for her to then withhold the refund.

Example: I recently booked a hotel for the weekend. Canx policy (which I always read carefully!) said that if i were to canx up to 24 hours before travel, I would be entitled to a full refund, less than 24 hours would be the equivalent of 1 night stay and on the day of arrival itself, loss of the whole booking. all perfectly clear, lawful and above board.

48 hours, hotelier calls me and says there's been a mistake (on our behalf, although that's blatantly untrue, but that's irrelevant), and we will have to pay an extra £30.

I look around and find another hotel at first price, so cancel 1st one.
Owner then tries to tell me that "by rights he could keep the whole amount, but he'd be nice and only withhold £20 for admin expenses".

Now, it MAY be that it cost him £20 to refund to my card (doubt it), but that's not my problem. He didn't say so in the terms I agreed to, therefore I can't have agreed to them.

Our OP here couldn't have agreed to terms she wasn't made aware of, therefore she can't be held to that contract. If the seller had said: "ok, but be aware that if you cancel you don't get your money back, only a credit note", then OP could have made a conscious decision as to whether she wanted to take the risk or not.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Incidentally, I can't remember the exact scales at the top of my head, but most TVl agents etc ... have an agreed set of ascending scales of refund, and I think (but please check, I am hazy on those) that 56 days is the cut-off period for any refund at all, after that it's forfeited in full. I had to deal with a couple of cases a couple of years ago, but as I said, I'm hazy on the details.

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

No, I disagree because you are wrong!

Yes, I think everyone got that that is your opinion.

Are you saying SOGA stops applying as soon as the purchaser receives the goods and the contract is concluded?

Errrr no, why should I say that when this is not the case?

The conforming to the SOGA is a process that gives the purchaser a "reasonable" amount of time to confirm that they comply, it's not complicated. Until this time the purchase is still covered by it!

Absolutely. No argument about that whatsoever. And that relates to this case, how? OP doesn't have the goods, and doesn't intend to have them!

OTOH, SOGA DOES state that "The measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the buyer’s breach of contract." so seller STILL wouldn't be able to withhold the refund, and it would be for a judge to decide whether the seller actually suffered a loss, and the onus would be on the seller to substantiate that supposed loss, as I have said all along. QED.

On this note (again), it is 1 week to xmas eve and my other duties beckon. My local authority needs a kick on the backside before they close for the holidays, and I have already spent far too much time explaining things on here to people I suspect are deliberately obfuscating for reasons best known to themselves.

midget_gems

is it me or did it just get boring in here?

gordikin

I'm sure bookie said he was out? Not a man of his word then?

gordikin

The shoes weren't in stock, the shop offered to order them, the buyer agreed and paid in full for them to be ordered...contract formed perhaps?..discuss!

bookworm1363

gordikin wrote: »

I'm sure bookie said he was out? Not a man of his word then?

I was, now stuck in thanks to the snow, and I am definitely NOT a man of my words. Thank goodness, I'd definitely classify that as a downgrade.

gordikin wrote: »

The shoes weren't in stock, the shop offered to order them, the buyer agreed and paid in full for them to be ordered...contract formed perhaps?..discuss!

• Contract formed: yes. Completed: no.
• Contract's validity since T&Cs were not communicated to the buyer before purchase: None.
• Actual loss suffered by seller due to breach of contract by buyer: None.
• Refund due to buyer: 100%.

Any questions? :cool:

I can't believe people are finding that concept that hard to fathom.

MyRubyRed

This thread is turning into pure madness. Buyer accepted the terms and conditions when she agreed to pay for the goods.

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

• Contract formed: yes. Completed: no.
• Contract's validity since T&Cs were not communicated to the buyer before purchase: None.
• Actual loss suffered by seller due to breach of contract by buyer: None.
• Refund due to buyer: 100%.

Any questions? :cool:

I can't believe people are finding that concept that hard to fathom.

The concept that is hard to fathom is why you think contracts are not binding until they are completed.

Additionally, the terms of the contract were the OP offered to buy the shoes and paid their consideration for the promise of the shoes.

Contract formed and binding.

If the OP failed to ask / include any additional terms required around cancellation does not make the contract any less valid.

You're still wrong I am afriad.