TV not delivered - eBay seller (Business)

withabix

evilskanker wrote: »

can you explain why it doesn't apply?

My first sentence says I bought a TV from eBay?

I meant your first paragraph.


You still don't have a case.

evilskanker

withabix wrote: »

I meant your first paragraph.


You still don't have a case.

Could you possibly explain why?

TonyMMM

evilskanker wrote: »

.....the seller (a business, and listed as a business seller) has now confirmed that the TV has been lost by the courier and that they are unable to send a replacement as they do not have any stock (and will not be getting any).

That is their defence.

They are not refusing to deliver .... they can't deliver because the item has been lost and they have no more.

withabix

evilskanker wrote: »

Could you possibly explain why?

Beacuse 51(1) does not apply in this situation.

evilskanker

withabix wrote: »

Beacuse 51(1) does not apply in this situation.

Yes, I understand that is what you are saying, but can you please explain why it does not apply in this situation?

withabix

evilskanker wrote: »

Yes, I understand that is what you are saying, but can you please explain why it does not apply in this situation?

Because the seller has not 'wrongfully neglected or refused to deliver the goods to the buyer'.

Fosterdog

You don't have a case because the seller (business or not) hasn't wilfully neglected to deliver. The wilfully attempted to supply you your TV but the courier has lost/stolen it.

Yes they will in all likelihood claim the loss from the courier but they will be claiming the cost of the missing item only, they will have a contract in place with the courier stopping them claiming additional costs.

I think you need to either buy a more affordable TV or save up to buy the one you really want from elsewhere

evilskanker

withabix wrote: »

Because the seller has not 'wrongfully neglected or refused to deliver the goods to the buyer'.

How can this not be a refusal to deliver the TV?

They could quite easily obtain the TV from an alternative source and send it to me, no?

The original TV allocated to me has been lost but I did not purchase a TV with a specific serial number or anything - just a model. The TVs are still readily available elsewhere, so how can this not be a refusal?

amcg100

I disagree with the other posters. There was a contract to supply goods and the seller is now in breach of contract. If you wanted to seek compensation over and above the value of the sale, you would need to prove your losses. This could include loss of enjoyment ( from not being able to watch tv for a period ) .

Technically, you've got a case, but I don't see why you would want to bother. The seller has offered you a full refund, and I think that is pretty good service. Many firms would try and fob you off with an alternative inferior product.

evilskanker

amcg100 wrote: »

I disagree with the other posters. There was a contract to supply goods and the seller is now in breach of contract. If you wanted to seek compensation over and above the value of the sale, you would need to prove your losses. This could include loss of enjoyment ( from not being able to watch tv for a period ) .

Technically, you've got a case, but I don't see why you would want to bother. The seller has offered you a full refund, and I think that is pretty good service. Many firms would try and fob you off with an alternative inferior product.

Your first paragraph was my understanding but it appears from other posters that I may have been mistaken.