Taking Payment without Stock?

unholyangel

Agricolae wrote: »

I agree that it is useful in terms of protecting consumers but you can't actually bring an action for breach of contract under DSRs, which can make them a bit awkward in practice (e.g it can make section 75 claims more difficult).

This is why I favour SoGA and other statutes over the DSRs, because they imply various terms into contracts.

(5) A contract which has not been performed within the period for performance shall be treated as if it had not been made, save for any rights or remedies which the consumer has under it as a result of the non-performance.

But where DSRs are concerned, its not a case of choosing one or the other, both apply.

As above, DSRs gives the default of 30 days unless otherwise agreed. This is actually superior to the SoGA element which only states within a "reasonable" time (again, unless otherwise agreed).

arcon5

Agricolae wrote: »

I agree that it is useful in terms of protecting consumers but you can't actually bring an action for breach of contract under DSRs, which can make them a bit awkward in practice (e.g it can make section 75 claims more difficult).

Of course you can take action against a company if they break the law! To say otherwise is absurd.


As for op, you've named two companies that don't take payment straight away, compared to millions that do. And one of those named was a supermarket, whose total is more of an estimate, particularly when you ordered weighed items so the price will not be determined until it's been picked.

phill99

There are numerous companies that take your money before they have tick. Most of the big furniture companies take full payment before you receive your suite etc, in fact you will find that they have taken you money even before they have placed an order with their suppliers, which is why that have a 12 week lead in time.

Jamie_Carter

phill99 wrote: »

There are numerous companies that take your money before they have tick. Most of the big furniture companies take full payment before you receive your suite etc, in fact you will find that they have taken you money even before they have placed an order with their suppliers, which is why that have a 12 week lead in time.

And I would just like to add, for those who don't know. If you pay by finance, or by card the retailer will receive the money within a few days.

MamaMoo_2

Yes, it's legal. As long as the company aren't defrauding you by planning to take your money and not supply the goods, there's no issue. I've often ordered products that are out of stock. Sometimes the website will say "not available for next day delivery" or "will not be dispatched until xx/xx"
Others will not say anything, as stock is expected soon enough that it won't really have much/any impact on delivery times.
In this case, it looks like Dial-a-phone, like many other suppliers, have anticipated, and therefore taken orders for x number of phones, but have had an issue with their supplier meaning only a certain percentage of that was delivered. They will now, presumably, amend the date of expected delivery.
As has already been said, if you don't like it, cancel and go elsewhere.

I'd also suggest that when you're given an accurate answer by an established user, that you don't get snotty with them, as people will then not bother to help you in future.

Chickabiddybex

Loads of companies take payment straight away even if stock isn't in yet. It is becoming more popular too. I personally prefer it so I don't have to keep X amount in my account at all times. It's hard to budget.

Agricolae

arcon5 wrote: »

Of course you can take action against a company if they break the law! To say otherwise is absurd.


As for op, you've named two companies that don't take payment straight away, compared to millions that do. And one of those named was a supermarket, whose total is more of an estimate, particularly when you ordered weighed items so the price will not be determined until it's been picked.

I didn't say you couldn't take action, I said you couldn't take action for breach of contract if the seller fails to comply with the DSRs (unless the seller expressly writes into its contract that it will deliver within 30 days or accept cancellation within x days or whatever).

You can take them to court, sure, but not for breach of contract.

@unholyangel -

You're right that both statutes can apply, but I can think of one type of scenario where both DSRs and SoGA apply, but DSRs are effectively useless - any section 75 claim.

This is because section 75 only covers breach of contract and misrepresentation. A company can break the DSRs all it likes and the consumer's credit card company will have no liability under section 75. The only option in such a case would probably be to take the company itself to court, which of course can be difficult or impossible in certain circumstances (gone bust/no assets, done a runner).

unholyangel

Agricolae wrote: »

I didn't say you couldn't take action, I said you couldn't take action for breach of contract if the seller fails to comply with the DSRs (unless the seller expressly writes into its contract that it will deliver within 30 days or accept cancellation within x days or whatever).

You can take them to court, sure, but not for breach of contract.

@unholyangel -

You're right that both statutes can apply, but I can think of one type of scenario where both DSRs and SoGA apply, but DSRs are effectively useless - any section 75 claim.

This is because section 75 only covers breach of contract and misrepresentation. A company can break the DSRs all it likes and the consumer's credit card company will have no liability under section 75. The only option in such a case would probably be to take the company itself to court, which of course can be difficult or impossible in certain circumstances (gone bust/no assets, done a runner).

So you class non-performance as what then if not a breach of contract?

Breach of contract is a common law principle, not something which stemmed from SoGA.


As I have said a few times now, if you order something which the DSRs apply to and no period for performance is agreed, the default is 30 days. Meaning that is now a term of the contract and if they fail to fulfill their obligations within that period, they are in breach of contract.

Agricolae

unholyangel wrote: »

So you class non-performance as what then if not a breach of contract?

Breach of contract is a common law principle, not something which stemmed from SoGA.


As I have said a few times now, if you order something which the DSRs apply to and no period for performance is agreed, the default is 30 days. Meaning that is now a term of the contract and if they fail to fulfill their obligations within that period, they are in breach of contract.

I agree with you that non-performance is obviously a breach of contract and this discussion is probably moot because, if someone has waited 30 days for something it's likely going to be late enough to count as a breach.

What I am saying is that the DSRs don't imply any terms into a contract. I know it says "a business must do this and that" but nowhere does it say these things become contractual terms.

This is because they do not become contractual terms. Compare section 14 of the SoGA with section 19 of the DSRs and you'll see what I mean - it's all about the wording.

As I said though, it is probably moot (except for section 75 claims).