Have I paid under false pretenses?

dan_l

bod1467 wrote: »

Whose clock? Websites run in the visitor's web browser so any website clock would be whatever time was set on the visitor's computer. Unless the website used the server's clock - but this can only be checked on page load, so realistically this would need to be checked after the visitor submits their order.

Obviously it would be easy to display a notice when the page is first loaded if the Next Day order by time had passed, but this wouldn't be 100% foolproof.

(I'm not defending the company - I'm just saying that implementing a clock check is not as easy you infer. They should still do it though).

There are ways it can be done. Look at Ebay for example that has an interactive clock on the page of an auction when it is in the final minutes.

bod1467

I know there are ways (e.g. I think Ebay uses AJAX to update the contents of a DIV), but it's not as easy as a throw-away one-liner.

I agree that the website should be revised to make sure nobody is mislead.

Flyboy152

halibut2209 wrote: »

As they should. So then it comes to under what law is the OP entitled to a refund of the goods. It's not DSR (perishable goods). It's not SOGA (as the goods were fit for purpose). You've said "contract law", but I'd like to know what part of contract law means that you can get a full refund for late delivery, especially since the goods were accepted on delivery. Facts, not opinions, would be appreciated.

I would imagine that the SOGASA would be relevant, as the service did not conform to contract.

Flyboy152

visidigi wrote: »

ALL it would take is one of these - *

Next to the guaranteed delivery date and this below it -

'Subject to cut off, please refer to the terms and conditions here' where the word here links to the terms.

Thats ALL they need to do, you wont be the first and you wont be the last - and quite honestly britishbouquets.co.uk need to fix this. And when this shows up on your Google searches Britishbouquets.co.uk please make sure you do the above - otherwise you will continue to do the opposite of your promise and disappoint each and every 'victim'.

Thanks

The advertised cut-off was 23:30.

halibut2209

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I would imagine that the SOGASA would be relevant, as the service did not conform to contract.

That would be the delivery charge. Which part of SOGASA means that late delivery entitles the buyer to a full refund?

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/home/contract-and-commercial-law

"So if, for example, satisfactory goods have not been delivered on time, the buyer can claim as damages any extra cost of buying equivalent goods at the then market price plus any expenses incurred in coping with problems caused by late delivery. Damages are in general compensatory not punitive: the court seeks to give fair compensation to the wronged party, not to penalise the contract-breaker."

Flyboy152

halibut2209 wrote: »

That would be the delivery charge. Which part of SOGASA means that late delivery entitles the buyer to a full refund?

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/home/contract-and-commercial-law

"So if, for example, satisfactory goods have not been delivered on time, the buyer can claim as damages any extra cost of buying equivalent goods at the then market price plus any expenses incurred in coping with problems caused by late delivery. Damages are in general compensatory not punitive: the court seeks to give fair compensation to the wronged party, not to penalise the contract-breaker."

I think you have answered your own question.

halibut2209

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I think you have answered your own question.

I think you are right

"the buyer can claim as damages any extra cost of buying equivalent goods at the then market price"

So that's nothing in this case

"plus any expenses incurred in coping with problems caused by late delivery."

So that's nothing in this case

"Damages are in general compensatory not punitive: the court seeks to give fair compensation to the wronged party, not to penalise the contract-breaker."

And by refunding perishable goods, that is penalising the contract-breaker. Therefore a refund is not appropriate in this case.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Flyboy152

halibut2209 wrote: »

I think you are right

"the buyer can claim as damages any extra cost of buying equivalent goods at the then market price"

So that's nothing in this case

"plus any expenses incurred in coping with problems caused by late delivery."

So that's nothing in this case

"Damages are in general compensatory not punitive: the court seeks to give fair compensation to the wronged party, not to penalise the contract-breaker."

And by refunding perishable goods, that is penalising the contract-breaker. Therefore a refund is not appropriate in this case.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

LOL I don't think you quite understand.

tomwakefield

Just wondering - if the OP didn't cancel the contract when informed of the breach (by the Customer Support) on the 18th, as they didn't cancel then, are they implicitly accepting an amendment of the contract?

sammi-m

tomwakefield wrote: »

Just wondering - if the OP didn't cancel the contract when informed of the breach (by the Customer Support) on the 18th, as they didn't cancel then, are they implicitly accepting an amendment of the contract?

I didnt cancel the order purely as I wanted to see if they would arrrive on the Monday. Had they not arrived then I would have cancelled.

My sister lives 148 miles away from me so receiving something was better than not receiving anything at all.

However saying that they were still in breach of the "order before 11.30 for next day delivery" hence my annoyance of paying for that service.

Instead of doing that (had I realised) I would have waited till morning and found a site like Interflora that was trusted for delivering a promise and my sister would have received them on the saturday being only 1 day late instead of 3.