Deleted Thread?

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

Yes that's fair enough but as I'm sure you noticed that wasn't the point I was responding to....

Oh i know. But your post made it seem like the owners post on the other thread was the only example of their questionable ethics.

I'm not one to automatically jump on the "company is in the wrong" bandwagon. But in this case, they are. In more ways than one. And if the owner has any sense about her at all, she'll realise the mistakes she made and start trying to correct them.

For one, she needs to learn not to take things personally. She is acting as a business, not as a person.

antrobus

I just though I'd mention that this kind of thing is covered by legislation, as in s30(2) Sale of Good Act 1979:-

Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods larger than he contracted to sell, the buyer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest, or he may reject the whole.

So any consumer is at liberty to reject the extra material delivered. Any attempt by a supplier to put something different in their t&cs would have no legal effect whatsoever.

System

antrobus wrote: »

I just though I'd mention that this kind of thing is covered by legislation, as in s30(2) Sale of Good Act 1979:-

Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods larger than he contracted to sell, the buyer may accept the goods included in the contract and reject the rest, or he may reject the whole.

So any consumer is at liberty to reject the extra material delivered. Any attempt by a supplier to put something different in their t&cs would have no legal effect whatsoever.

Yes but thats the opposite of what happened. The buyer kept all the goods! Although there are two conflicting stories over what was said between the seller and the buyers husband on the phone.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

Oh i know. But your post made it seem like the owners post on the other thread was the only example of their questionable ethics.

I'm not one to automatically jump on the "company is in the wrong" bandwagon. But in this case, they are. In more ways than one. And if the owner has any sense about her at all, she'll realise the mistakes she made and start trying to correct them.

For one, she needs to learn not to take things personally. She is acting as a business, not as a person.

Yes the owner is obviously in the wrong on her T's & C's and how she runs her business (and the way she speaks to people). However I do not think she is 100% in the wrong in this case. The phone call from the husband to the business owner makes more sense the way she said it than the way the OP said it.

If like the OP said that her husband made it clear they have received a much larger order than they had asked for and the business owner said that was fine I don't see any reason why the business owner would then phone up a week later and demand the money.

I do think it likely that the OP's husband did not make it clear exactly how much extra they had received, therefore I can see why the woman was annoyed.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

Yes the owner is obviously in the wrong on her T's & C's and how she runs her business (and the way she speaks to people). However I do not think she is 100% in the wrong in this case. The phone call from the husband to the business owner makes more sense the way she said it than the way the OP said it.

If like the OP said that her husband made it clear they have received a much larger order than they had asked for and the business owner said that was fine I don't see any reason why the business owner would then phone up a week later and demand the money.

I do think it likely that the OP's husband did not make it clear exactly how much extra they had received, therefore I can see why the woman was annoyed.

But since the owner was the one contracted to the supplier, she should have checked with them how much she was getting charged for.

She didnt because she couldnt be bothered/has no idea how to actually run a business properly. Either way, she just assumed. She should have especially checked if - like she claims - the OP's hubby was being shifty/evasive.

But thats just another thing about the owners story that doesnt add up.

Valli

My thinking is this was a drop ship, 'lady' took the order, asked for the wrong quantity to be sent out to OP; didn't realise this initially (hence 'you can keep the surplus') THEN got billed for the amount she had ordered in error and NOW expects OP to pay for her error.

Assuming OP has been wholly truthful of course

pulliptears

Valli wrote: »

My thinking is this was a drop ship, 'lady' took the order, asked for the wrong quantity to be sent out to OP; didn't realise this initially (hence 'you can keep the surplus') THEN got billed for the amount she had ordered in error and NOW expects OP to pay for her error.

Assuming OP has been wholly truthful of course

Exactly how I saw it as well. As I said before drop shipping is great until something like this happens.

The owner needs to be sorting out the error with the manufacturer not berating her customer for being honest enough to tell her there was a mistake.

I get the impression this is a one woman business run out of a spare room who is drop shipping a large amount of orders.
ETA. Yep, the address given on the website does indeed lead back to a residential property.

pulliptears

Incidentally, here is a screencap of the changes to the T&C's.

The image on the left is the current T&C's for that section from 5 minutes ago, the image on the right shows the original unamended T&C's from 11 Jan 2013 14:51:11. A large amount has been added into the section entitled (7)Delivery Policy which coincidentally covers OP's issues.

MamaMoo_2

pulliptears wrote: »

Incidentally, here is a screencap of the changes to the T&C's.

The image on the left is the current T&C's for that section from 5 minutes ago, the image on the right shows the original unamended T&C's from 11 Jan 2013 14:51:11. A large amount has been added into the section entitled (7)Delivery Policy which coincidentally covers OP's issues.

Methinks the trader changed her T&C's with the sole intention of using them to change the situation to her advantage.
"Well, you agreed to the T&C's, if you just read section 7..."
Very sneaky and underhand to try and introduce a condition after the deal is done that unfairly sways the situation heavily in the traders favour, IMO.
Thank heavens for Google's cached copy.
Again, just my opinion. Y'know, how it looks to the average person. Of course, this could be a big fat coincidence, in which case I'll eat my hat

antrobus

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but thats the opposite of what happened. The buyer kept all the goods! Although there are two conflicting stories over what was said between the seller and the buyers husband on the phone.

The seller didn't "deliver(s) to the buyer a quantity of goods larger than he contracted to sell"? I thought that was exactly what happened.

Reading between the lines, the sequence of events appears to have been: buyer then contacted seller (rejecting the rest), seller said keep the extra. Seller later (presumably after receipt of invoice from manufacturer) realised that the extra was considerably more than they though it was, claims that they were misled by buyer and demands payment. By which time buyer has used the extra having taken seller at their word first time round.

I can't see that SOGA places any limits on the 'rest' that is 'rejected'. Any claim by the seller for payment would therefore rest on the allegation of misrepresentation.