Deleted Thread?

lynseypvic

This is a quote from one of her letters

Under our Terms and Conditions of Sale, you are liable to pay for any goods which are delivered to you in error and which are not made available for collection and are, therefore, retained by you for a period in excess of seven days. I accordingly enclose an invoice for the additional nine metres of vet bed totaling £108.50.

However, when we replied that it had been brought to our attention that she had changed her terms after the sale and it was concerning that she had contacted us 8 days after delivery to demand the money, she replied with this


Our Terms and conditions areupdated regularly and you are not bound by subsequent alterations, as statedin the Terms. You have not paid for 9 metres of vetbed and ownership has notpassed to you. You are therefore not entitled to retain the goods. This is ageneral contractual principle. Are you seriously saying that if you ordered aMini car and the delivery company delivered a Rolls Royce in error you would be entitled to retain the Rolls Royce

MamaMoo_2

lynseypvic wrote: »

Our Terms and conditions areupdated regularly and you are not bound by subsequent alterations, as statedin the Terms. You have not paid for 9 metres of vetbed and ownership has notpassed to you. You are therefore not entitled to retain the goods. This is ageneral contractual principle. Are you seriously saying that if you ordered aMini car and the delivery company delivered a Rolls Royce in error you would be entitled to retain the Rolls Royce

If the dealer said "yeah, keep it" then yes. Legally binding verbal contract, innit

lynseypvic

And I have never made the point to her that we should keep it just because it was delivered it to us anyway. I have only said we used it because she told us to and she is now harrassing us for more money following a verbal contract.

However, she has completely contridicted herself by trying to hold us to the terms in one letter and then, when called on this, saying we are not bound by the alterations to the terms and trying to detract from this point by suggesting we are saying we should keep the rolls royce (10m (??) of fluffy material) when we only ordered a mini car (1m).

She is also getting confused (deliberately - ?) about the fact we cut one liner, called her, then cut spares to use in the future after she said keep it. What we had said to her, and what we said on the forum is that my husband started cutting the material for our cage, I arrived home and saw it was the wrong product and then we called. However, she is saying we are contridicting ourselves because my husband has written to her saying he only cut out 4 liners AFTER the first phone call (as we always said and I have said on this forum). I don't understand the contradiction. She says, I have admitted on the forum that my husband started cutting the material before the phone call, therefore we must have cut enough for 4 hutches before we even phoned her and she quotes me

“My husband received the item when I was not home and when I returned he had cut thebedding to the size we needed”

How is that proof that I cut enough for 4 hutches before phoning her. I really don't have 4 hutches by the way lol! She has written a few paragraphs just on that one point above!

She also states

You cannot argue there is a binding contract if you tell blatant lies i.e. make false representations about the amount of extra vet bed you received. You completely misrepresented the situation in an attempt to deceive me. This is the crime of attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception

MamaMoo_2

lynseypvic wrote: »

And I have never made the point to her that we should keep it just because it was delivered it to us anyway. I have only said we used it because she told us to and she is now harrassing us for more money following a verbal contract.

However, she has completely contridicted herself by trying to hold us to the terms in one letter and then, when called on this, saying we are not bound by the alterations to the terms and trying to detract from this point by suggesting we are saying we should keep the rolls royce (10m (??) of fluffy material) when we only ordered a mini car (1m).

She is also getting confused (deliberately - ?) about the fact we cut one liner, called her, then cut spares to use in the future after she said keep it. What we had said to her, and what we said on the forum is that my husband started cutting the material for our cage, I arrived home and saw it was the wrong product and then we called. However, she is saying we are contridicting ourselves because my husband has written to her saying he only cut out 4 liners AFTER the first phone call (as we always said and I have said on this forum). I don't understand the contradiction. She says, I have admitted on the forum that my husband started cutting the material before the phone call, therefore we must have cut enough for 4 hutches before we even phoned her and she quotes me

“Myhusband received the item when I was not home and when I returned he had cut thebedding to the size we needed”

How is that proof that I cut enough for 4 hutches before phoning her. I really don't have 4 hutches by the way lol! She has written a few paragraphs just on that one point above!

She also states

You cannot argue there is abinding contract if you tell blatant lies i.e. make false representations about the amountof extra vet bed you received. You completely misrepresented the situation inan attempt to deceive me. This is the crime of attempting to obtain pecuniaryadvantage by deception

OP, here is the letter you need to send.


Dear Seller,
Sod off.
See you in court,
Lynseypvic

lynseypvic

Quote from the traders last letter. You can see this is "point 11"!

I had originally wondered if this was a scam when she phoned the way she did but then we thought maybe (although still wrong) she had assumed there would be no loss to her and then only phoned us once she realised she was being invoiced for the excess. However, now I am wondering again.

11.

Do you really expect a judge to believe:

1.

you ordered a single piece of vet bed, one metre long, but you actually receiveda roll of vet bed 10 metres long (signed for by you) but you were confused by whatyou received

2. you then‘phoned me and told me you have received a delivery that was “much too big” but I did not want the hassle of arranging to have the wrong delivery collectedand, consequently, I told you to keep the additional nine metres of vet bed, worthover £100, withoutfurther payment?

3.I said there was no record of what was sent to you, despite the fact I knew the order was sent by courier and was tracked and traceable.
No one in their right mind wouldbelieve such a story.

lynseypvic

MamaMoo wrote: »

OP, here is the letter you need to send.


Dear
Sod off.
See you in court,
Lynseypvic

My concern is that whether or not this goes to court, the level of contact and the way she is dealing with things is harassment and now I have got to deal with that.

Fosterdog

Well then I can't be in my right mind because I believe your side

System

Will it harm your case if this goes to court that you've published word for word the correspondence between you and this woman?

It seems a bit dodgy. Especially now the business has been named.

You've got the woman's extra product for free and now you appear to want to destroy her business.

Seems a bit harsh.

wealdroam

goater78 wrote: »

Will it harm your case if this goes to court that you've published word for word the correspondence between you and this woman?

I agree with Goater.

Lynseypvic, probably best that you do not post too much 'evidence'.

Oli.s

Just tell her to stop bothering you and to either 'put up' and take you to court, or 'shut up' and leave you alone.

Might be worth telling her that if she is going to take you to court she needs to tell her 'solicitor' to buy the latest copy of his law books, his are about 5 years out of date if she's quoting old fraud offences such as obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.

She seems like a chancer who thinks if she pesters you enough youll pay her to go away.