Deleted Thread?

gb12345

goater78 wrote: »

you have no proof of

"I have been advised not to pay as we reported the excess to her and already entered into a legally binding contract with her over the phone."

Its her word against yours. There have been 2 different stories about this phone call. It will be down to the courts to decide who is more believable.

Which is probably why a solicitor has told her not to pay. If the seller wants her money then she can try her luck through the courts - at the present moment there is no reason for the OP to pay her anything.

The seller has already shown the type of "businesswoman" she is by trying to rely on T&Cs that weren't in place when the order was placed - OP, I hope that you have evidence showing the original T&Cs so that if needs be they can be used in court.

Fosterdog

goater78 wrote: »

Its her word against yours. There have been 2 different stories about this phone call. It will be down to the courts to decide who is more believable.

Even the seller admitted to saying they could keep the excess during that phone call, the only bit the seller disagreed with was how much the excess was, never about saying that it could be kept.

System

gb12345 wrote: »

Which is probably why a solicitor has told her not to pay. If the seller wants her money then she can try her luck through the courts - at the present moment there is no reason for the OP to pay her anything.

The seller has already shown the type of "businesswoman" she is by trying to rely on T&Cs that weren't in place when the order was placed - OP, I hope that you have evidence showing the original T&Cs so that if needs be they can be used in court.

You're arguing a different point. I said she has no evidence of "the contract" and the courts would be the ones who decide. I never said she should pay.

On a side note I would be surprised if she went to see a solicitor. As the disputed amount is only £100 paying for a solicitor would be a bit of a waste.

System

Fosterdog wrote: »

Even the seller admitted to saying they could keep the excess during that phone call, the only bit the seller disagreed with was how much the excess was, never about saying that it could be kept.

Yes they both admitted to the phone call. However the difference in what was said was key. 6 inches versus 9 metres is a massive difference.

All I'm disputing is the statement in regards to the legally binding verbal contract. I believe this is the main area of the dispute and it could go either way. The courts will decide not the OP or the seller.

Fosterdog

goater78 wrote: »

Yes they both admitted to the phone call. However the difference in what was said was key. 6 inches versus 9 metres is a massive difference.

All I'm disputing is the statement in regards to the legally binding verbal contract. I believe this is the main area of the dispute and it could go either way. The courts will decide not the OP or the seller.

I understand that but it would also be down to the seller to mitigate any losses and by saying to keep the excess instead of chasing it with their supplier the seller has failed to do this and can't come asking for extra payment now.

If the seller had said "hold onto the extra while I investigate with the supplier" and OP went on to cut it up and use then it would be different but the seller didn't wan't to investigate it until after saying it could be kept and when the bill from the supplier came through.

There still seems to be some dispute over the amount delivered. The seller says 10m were delivered instead of 1m, yet OP needed 1m to fit the hutch and has enough to fit 4 hutches, even with excess offcuts would leave no more than 5m being delivered and not the 10m seller is claiming.

Just to add I know there are not four separate hutches, but an amount that would fit the same hutch four times.

As you say it is for the court to decide and on the balance of probabilities a customer wouldn't contact a seller about an excess delivery of 6" on a 1m order, it is more likely to been seen as a deliberate overcut to allow for wastage/fraying/cutting at an angle etc. and is common with material.

The mere fact that OP contacted the seller at all suggests a much larger over delivery and even if OP had said specifically that it was 6" over the seller could have chosen to ask them to wait while it's investigated to make sure that OP wasn't underestimating the extra.

There is no proof for either party what exactly was said in the phone call but the fact it even took place shows that OP knew it was something that could cause a problem and wanted to rectify it before going any further.

hfdka

lynseypvic wrote: »

I have had further emails and letters from the seller all within the space of a week. I have not yet responded. She gave a ridiculous deadline of a couple of days to get back to her which I have not yet.
She is demanding more money again, 2 different amount on different letters and she is telling me what fees I must apparently pay if she takes this to court.
She is quoting her terms and conditions which state excess goods sent in error must be paid for if not returned. As anyone following the thread knows, this seller changed her terms and conditions to include this term after selling the product to me and telling me to keep the excess.
I have been advised not to pay as we reported the excess to her and already entered into a legally binding contract with her over the phone. But what do I do about the fact she is constantly contacting us, demanding money and even changing her terms and conditions and pretending they were in place before the sale?
Thanks

Phone the police, she is harassing you.

wealdroam

hfdka wrote: »

Phone the police, she is harassing you.

OP, do not do that.

At least, do not do that until you have warned her that further threatening emails or letters will be considered harassment.

halibut2209

I'd love to see her try and explain in court why she is threatening the OP based on T&Cs made after the fact!

MamaMoo_2

I'd be pointing out that changing the T&C's in her favour after your order was completed and then trying to make you relieve you are contractually obliged to abide by a term that didn't even exist until last week could be construed as fraud...

System

However it is important to note that the change in T's & C's is almost irrelevant. If you order a product and they send you more of that product then you ordered then you are liable to take care of the excess with or without it being in the T's & C's.