Deleted Thread?

antrobus

MamaMoo wrote: »

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.

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

pulliptears

antrobus wrote: »

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

Lets just call it a coincidental amendment to T&C's, which coincidentally covered an issue that coincidentally occurred around the time the OP was a customer shall we?

Life is full of funny coincidences.

System

antrobus wrote: »

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.

The legislation you quoted was

"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."

The OP did the exact opposite of this they rejected nothing. They kept the goods.

You are falling into a common trap on this forum of quoting legislation to try and sound intelligent when its not relevant to the problem. The only cast iron facts in this incident is the seller sent too much to the buyer and the buyer kept the excess. Everything else is just "he said, she said".

I also don't see the relevance in changing the T's &C's. are companies not allowed to changed their T's & C's? I don't believe the Seller referenced in her post any mention of the T's & C's? It's another example of how posters on this forum like to labour a point to prove they have caught someone out. It's all a bit immature and reeks of a bullying mentality!

MamaMoo_2

goater78 wrote: »

The legislation you quoted was

"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."

The OP did the exact opposite of this they rejected nothing. They kept the goods.

You are falling into a common trap on this forum of quoting legislation to try and sound intelligent when its not relevant to the problem. The only cast iron facts in this incident is the seller sent too much to the buyer and the buyer kept the excess. Everything else is just "he said, she said".

I also don't see the relevance in changing the T's &C's. are companies not allowed to changed their T's & C's? I don't believe the Seller referenced in her post any mention of the T's & C's? It's another example of how posters on this forum like to labour a point to prove they have caught someone out. It's all a bit immature and reeks of a bullying mentality!

One could argue that by phoning the trader to inform them of their mistake with regards to the amount of material sent was a rejection. However, the seller choosing to tell OP's husband to keep the spare free of charge was their way of dealing with this. The seller could equally have taken the material back, or come to a deal on the remaining material. But they didn't. The seller made the decision with regards to how to deal with the situation, it now just appears that she regrets this.
It's similar to me buying something, contacting a seller and saying "I reject the extra 20% you've sent" and the seller saying "ok, you dispose of it yourself then to save me collection/disposal costs"


The relevance with regards to changing T&Cs was more to ensure that OP had a copy of the original T&Cs that OP agreed to when she ordered so that the seller could not try and hold OP to the new T&Cs which were never agreed to.
Surely you cannot fail to see the significant coincidence between this situation occurring, and this particular term changing.
Whilst it's entirely possible that this (probably unenforcable) term was added to protect the seller going forward, it's also important that the buyer is made aware that there has been a significant change in the T&Cs that could potentially be very detrimental to them whilst fighting their corner. This then allows the OP to have a copy of the terms they agreed to in order to back themselves up, rather than, if they were unaware of this change, potentially being held to T&Cs they didn't agree to in the absence of a copy of the ones they did agree to.

System

Yes but again you are deciding to believe that the OP was telling the truth about the phone call and the seller was lying!

I do love how people on this forum get one piece of information and create a whole little story!

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but again you are deciding to believe that the OP was telling the truth about the phone call and the seller was lying!

I do love how people on this forum get one piece of information and create a whole little story!

Yes and you decided to believe the owner. We were all presented with the same information, we just came to different conclusions.

So why is it ok for you to do and not for anyone else?

Mista_C

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but again you are deciding to believe that the OP was telling the truth about the phone call and the seller was lying!

I do love how people on this forum get one piece of information and create a whole little story!

The seller also admitted to telling the OPs partner to keep the excess. I guess a few on here must have missed the original thread.

System

Mista_C wrote: »

The seller also admitted to telling the OPs partner to keep the excess. I guess a few on here must have missed the original thread.

Yes but the the Seller said the OP's partner said it was only a small amount of excess (6 inches was mentioned).

I think a lot of people on here have missed the original thread!

Anyway its not worth arguing about anymore. The OP's not going to be sued and the seller is the one who will be down the £100.

tamiami

I personally think the OP misled the Seller into thinking there was far less over delivered than actually was. The Seller thought it wasn't worth bothering over a few extra inches - then was shocked when she got the invoice and realised it was far far more, an extra few metres or £100 worth.

The fact that the Seller went to the trouble to post on here makes me think she was very cross and felt very misled.

Mista_C

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but the the Seller said the OP's partner said it was only a small amount of excess (6 inches was mentioned).

I think a lot of people on here have missed the original thread!

Anyway its not worth arguing about anymore. The OP's not going to be sued and the seller is the one who will be down the £100.

tamiami wrote: »

I personally think the OP misled the Seller into thinking there was far less over delivered than actually was. The Seller thought it wasn't worth bothering over a few extra inches - then was shocked when she got the invoice and realised it was far far more, an extra few metres or £100 worth.

The fact that the Seller went to the trouble to post on here makes me think she was very cross and felt very misled.

According to the seller in her post, she was told by the OPs OH that the extra had already been cut up and put into hutches [plural]. The seller then suggested to the OPs OH that the amount was 6 inches to which the OPs OH allegedly agreed. Even the seller admitted at no point did the OPs OH specify an amount other than to say they'd received too much.

I'm no expert on hutches but if someone told me they had enough to cover 4 hutches (seller later states 4 hutches in her post), I would estimate it to be a greater amount than 6 inches, remembering that the estimation is being made by a person in this line of business.
Either the OPs OH said he was able to cover several hutches and the seller believes this equated to 6 inches of bedding (suggested amount from the seller) or the seller is mistaken in the chain of events of the telephone conversation.

There were a number of things in the sellers post that just didn't add up, with that being one of the main ones that caught my eye.