can i have my money back?

Freddie_Snowbits

No further Questions your honour

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

hmmm, yes, no insults whatsoever. This kind of scintillating comments really make you stand out as someone whose advice must be faultless. :rotfl:

Bany idiot knows that the answer to that is this: It depends on the contract.

Or, to reiterate the words of Lord Clarke, as previously quoted:

"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".

I can't make it any clearer than Lord Clarke has. It depends on the terms agreed between the parties. An online retailer may stipulate that it will only be on despatch. For some, it will be as soon as you sign on the dotted line. for some, it will be over a handshake and a gentleman's agreement.

If you can't understand that simple premise, I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler than that. But that is your failing, not mine.

What is the relevance of your quote to the situation?

The contract was agreed and binding and not complete. Your quote doesn't support the premise that you can unilaterally alter the terms of a contract prior to completion.

Zandoni

You lot are so funny......

shaun_from_Africa

[What part of the above is not understandable to you? I wrote something which was not what I meant, I said so, apologised for it/QUOTE]

It might not be what you meant, but is it not a fact that you still stated it?

It would be quite a bizarre thing to say, you're right, which is why I didn't say it.

You did say it. It is there for everyone to read. It was only after you had been proven wrong that you decided to recant something that was so wrong that it was laughable.

bookworm1363

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

[What part of the above is not understandable to you? I wrote something which was not what I meant, I said so, apologised for it/QUOTE]

It might not be what you meant, but is it not a fact that you still stated it?
You did say it. It is there for everyone to read. It was only after you had been proven wrong that you decided to recant something that was so wrong that it was laughable.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

What is the relevance of your quote to the situation?

Errrrmmm, you were asking me to answer your question as to when a contract was binding? Or have you already forgotten that you asked? :huh:

The contract was agreed and binding and not complete. Your quote doesn't support the premise that you can unilaterally alter the terms of a contract prior to completion.

Nope, I don't think I said it did.

But you're correct, one can not unilaterally alter the terms of a contract prior to completion. Which is precisely why the seller can not add cancellation terms she hadn't mentioned to the buyer in the first place and must therefore refund in full. QED.

You have -finally- got there. Well done. :T

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

But you're correct, one can not unilaterally alter the terms of a contract prior to completion. Which is precisely why the seller can not add cancellation terms she hadn't mentioned to the buyer in the first place and must therefore refund in full. QED.

You have -finally- got there. Well done. :T

Excellent, after 4 pages of too-ing and fro-ing we are starting to agree.

However, without any terms specifying cancellation terms why do you think a breach of contract means that the OP can be put back into their initial position? There are no new terms being added by the retailer that I can see.

Lack of cancellation terms does not negate the normal contract breach remedies (and given the situation outlined the OP would appear to be wanting to breach their agreement).

bookworm1363

somethingcorporate wrote: »

However, without any terms specifying cancellation terms why do you think a breach of contract means that the OP can be put back into their initial position? There are no new terms being added by the retailer that I can see.

UTCCR: In the instance where terms may be unclear/implied etc, the interpretation used will be the one most favourable to the consumer.

Lack of cancellation terms does not negate the normal contract breach remedies (and given the situation outlined the OP would appear to be wanting to breach their agreement).

UTCCR again: lack of cancellation rights or terms which would create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer (which not providing rights to cancel would automatically be deemed to be, let's face it) makes the entirety of the contract non-enforceable.

Even if the contract were deemed to be enforceable (which I doubt, but let's extrapolate some) then the seller would still have to quantify their loss after having attempted to mitigate = reselling the shoes, failing to, and having a good excuse as to why she doesn't think she will ever resell them... an unlikely premise I think we can agree?

somethingcorporate

bookworm1363 wrote: »

UTCCR: In the instance where terms may be unclear/implied etc, the interpretation used will be the one most favourable to the consumer.

UTCCR again: lack of cancellation rights or terms which would create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer (which not providing rights to cancel would automatically be deemed to be, let's face it) makes the entirety of the contract non-enforceable.

Even if the contract were deemed to be enforceable (which I doubt, but let's extrapolate some) then the seller would still have to quantify their loss after having attempted to mitigate = reselling the shoes, failing to, and having a good excuse as to why she doesn't think she will ever resell them... an unlikely premise I think we can agree?

I cannot see any additional or unfair terms being applied in this situation.

Are you saying a lack of any cancellation rights for a consumer is unfair? funny that under SOGA there are NO concellation rights for a consumer.

bookworm1363

You're missing the point.

If no terms were agreed upon, then the seller is trying to introduce an element (which is obviously not as favourable) which either didn't exist or which she didn't communicate to the buyer. I'm not talking about having cancellation terms or not, I'm talking about not communicating them to the buyer. Even if she had said that there were no right to cancel, that might not have been an unfair term if the buyer had agreed to it, but not telling her about that would definitely be unfair. I'm not talking about SOGA here, but UTCCR.