can i have my money back?

DVardysShadow

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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.

I have to say I agree. I have crossed swords with her before https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/39402074#Comment_39402074 and while I would not for one moment suggest she has nothing useful to say, her understanding of the concept of a contract and of the law surrounding it is completely out of kilter with reality.

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

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.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I have to say I agree. I have crossed swords with her before https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/39402074#Comment_39402074 and while I would not for one moment suggest she has nothing useful to say, her understanding of the concept of a contract and of the law surrounding it is completely out of kilter with reality.

You know it's funny the pack mentality in here: you all agree with one another, with nothing more than a bullying "you're wrong" falling even further into insults, up to and including the sexist remarks thankfully now removed... yet not ONE of you can say anything other than the same mantra over and over again, you keep on going on about "binding", which is not he argument, and not addressing "enforceable", which is what it's about.

As for my "out of kilter" concepts, LMAO. I have the results that show that I understand those concepts a lot better than the sheep who seem to think that because the retailer says so it must be true. Shame on you lot for perpetuating those fallacies. Good thing that the lawyers I have gone up against and the judges I have stood in front of didn't find these concepts so out of kilter, lol.

However, the difference is one of mentality. You say you have "crossed swords" with me? Honey, I don't "cross swords" with anyone except people who would do and mine wrong, and when they do, I win.

On this board and others however, I don't cross swords with anyone. I give my opinion and advice to the person asking (the OP, anyone remembers her? she who came asking for help and got ridiculed and derided for daring asking?). If my opinion and advice contradict others, that doesn't bother me. If people want to contradict me, that doesn't bother me either, but I would ask of them basic courtesy (which they regularly fail to do) and proof of their assertions (which they seldom do).

However, as I said earlier, the decision is ultimately down to the OP to see whose advice they want to take. Unlike you lot, I don't take it as a blow to my ego if she decides to go the other way. :rotfl:

If you folks spent as much time and were as quick being nice to people as you are of ridiculing them and judging them, this world would quickly become a better place. And THAT's is JUST my opinion, yet again I don't really care whether you approve or not.

blue_monkey_2

Or just buy the next size up ready for when DD wants them.

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

However, as I said earlier, the decision is ultimately down to the OP to see whose advice they want to take. Unlike you lot, I don't take it as a blow to my ego if she decides to go the other way. :rotfl:

If you folks spent as much time and were as quick being nice to people as you are of ridiculing them and judging them, this world would quickly become a better place. And THAT's is JUST my opinion, yet again I don't really care whether you approve or not.

I just want to know why you think a contract is only binding after it is concluded - that is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard.

And no, IANAL, but I am married to one and in my accountancy study I did have to do a small bit on contract law.

Contracts are binding on agreement, otherwise they are fairly pointless.

gordikin

bookworm1363 wrote: »

You know it's funny the pack mentality in here: you all agree with one another, with nothing more than a bullying "you're wrong" falling even further into insults, up to and including the sexist remarks thankfully now removed... yet not ONE of you can say anything other than the same mantra over and over again, you keep on going on about "binding", which is not he argument, and not addressing "enforceable", which is what it's about.

As for my "out of kilter" concepts, LMAO. I have the results that show that I understand those concepts a lot better than the sheep who seem to think that because the retailer says so it must be true. Shame on you lot for perpetuating those fallacies. Good thing that the lawyers I have gone up against and the judges I have stood in front of didn't find these concepts so out of kilter, lol.

However, the difference is one of mentality. You say you have "crossed swords" with me? Honey, I don't "cross swords" with anyone except people who would do and mine wrong, and when they do, I win.

On this board and others however, I don't cross swords with anyone. I give my opinion and advice to the person asking (the OP, anyone remembers her? she who came asking for help and got ridiculed and derided for daring asking?). If my opinion and advice contradict others, that doesn't bother me. If people want to contradict me, that doesn't bother me either, but I would ask of them basic courtesy (which they regularly fail to do) and proof of their assertions (which they seldom do).

However, as I said earlier, the decision is ultimately down to the OP to see whose advice they want to take. Unlike you lot, I don't take it as a blow to my ego if she decides to go the other way. :rotfl:

If you folks spent as much time and were as quick being nice to people as you are of ridiculing them and judging them, this world would quickly become a better place. And THAT's is JUST my opinion, yet again I don't really care whether you approve or not.

Yeh right, we are all bullies for doing no more than disagreeing with you. If we are all bullies email abuse and see if they agree.

DVardysShadow

bookworm1363 wrote: »

If you folks spent as much time and were as quick being nice to people as you are of ridiculing them and judging them, this world would quickly become a better place. And THAT's is JUST my opinion, yet again I don't really care whether you approve or not.

We are only telling you you are WRONG. It is not so much a matter of ridiculing you or judging you, it is just trying to protect people from your mistaken advice.

gordikin

DVardysShadow wrote: »

We are only telling you you are WRONG. It is not so much a matter of ridiculing you or judging you, it is just trying to protect people from your mistaken advice.

DVS don't shout, you big bully you!

DCFC79

A good thread this is, OP you could politely ask for a refund but dont hold your hopes up since the shoes arent faulty, why not just take the credit note then use it against some other shoes(if they sell other shoes apart frm dance shoes) but make sure they fit first

Optimist

Wonderful thread and completely irrelevant for a £40 pair of shoes and a OP who hasn't been back since she posted but for what it is worth IMHO there was a contract in place.

All the elements were there, and there was even intent by both parties to form said contract.

That said, if in the unlikely event it went to court, the retailer would have had to prove actual loss which unless the shoes were special size would be difficult

My bet the retailer would have given a refund as it would have cost her more to go to court than defend.

Zippy123

bookworm1363 wrote: »

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.

Wrong! Shops only need to refund on faulty / rejected goods unless otherwise agreed in advance. You are lucky to be offered a credit note to be honest.

A deposit is just that. Again unless specifically agreed they are not usually returnable.

It makes no difference that the shop may be able to still sell the goods. They have had to expend staff costs etc. to order the goods.