Retailer Cancelled Order after i'd paid

earthstorm

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

One major difference being that Asda inform customers about what will happen in the event of non collection from the store before they make the purchase and before the contract has been concluded, thus allowing the customer to make their final buying decision based on what they already know. (This info is available on the Asda website).

If the information is only supplied in an e-mail after purchase, the retailer will then be attempting to introduce new conditions into the contract after both parties have agreed to the original T&C's.

no your get the email giving these details when they item is ready to collect. If you dont collect then the store will return the item to the warehouse and you get refunded. No store can hold these items indefinite hoping you will collect someday.

jacques_chirac

bris wrote: »

Why, can you please explain your version of "offer and acceptance"

Contract law is clear on this, it takes both parties to rescing the contract, one can't do so without penaly if the other chooses to follow up on it.

The same law as this would apply as the goods legally belonged to the op http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_common_problems_with_products_e/consumer_lost_found_and_uncollected_goods_e/how_to_dispose_of_left_behind_goods.htm

As no time scale was mentioned and the OP clearly states no email was received then halibut2209 is correct "loss of bargain" would be appropriate, how you can self inflict a loss of bargain is anyones guess.

There is a point where common sense comes into play. If a retailer sends goods to you by courier delivery and you are repeatedly not at home, how often should they try to redeliver before returning it to the seller for refund? Is it reasonable for the courier to still be attempting delivery after a month, or for the retailer to hang on to the goods in case the customer bothers to get in touch?

arcon5

Jesus, some people just cannot take responsibility for their own actions!

They accepted your order and you failed to fulfill your side of the deal, being collecting the goods. So after a very reasonable amount of time they decided to cancel the order because of this. Claiming loss of bargain is ridiculous, it was caused by your inaction.

frugal_mike

I've checked the sale of goods act and nothing jumped out at me that covers the situation here specifically. It was only a brief look though, so I could well have missed something.

However section 18 (rules for deciding when ownership transfers) looks relevant:

Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment or the time of delivery, or both, be postponed.

So OP owned the goods the instant the seller notified that the contract was in place. I don't see how the seller can unilaterally decide to take possession of the goods back.

That been said it would seem unreasonable to expect a store to hold goods indefinitely. Seeming unreasonable doesn't automatically mean it isn't allowed though.

frugal_mike

jacques_chirac wrote: »

There is a point where common sense comes into play. If a retailer sends goods to you by courier delivery and you are repeatedly not at home, how often should they try to redeliver before returning it to the seller for refund? Is it reasonable for the courier to still be attempting delivery after a month, or for the retailer to hang on to the goods in case the customer bothers to get in touch?

I think the sale of goods act has a term saying that the buyer must not unreasonably prevent delivery. Not being at home could be taken to be unreasonably preventing delivery.

earthstorm

frugal_mike wrote: »

I've checked the sale of goods act and nothing jumped out at me that covers the situation here specifically. It was only a brief look though, so I could well have missed something.

However section 18 (rules for deciding when ownership transfers) looks relevant:



So OP owned the goods the instant the seller notified that the contract was in place. I don't see how the seller can unilaterally decide to take possession of the goods back.

That been said it would seem unreasonable to expect a store to hold goods indefinitely. Seeming unreasonable doesn't automatically mean it isn't allowed though.

Most stores have limited store room space so keeping goods indefinitely is not practical, so they get returned after a set period and as a majority of main retailers run their online operation separate to their stores, even if the store has the goods available what you order has to come from their warehouse and returned to their warehouse if not collected and after that if you turn up then cant just take the goods off the shop floor for you. you have failed to collect ( you part of the contract) so they get returned and you get a full refund, so you are left in the same position as you were before the contract.

jacques_chirac

frugal_mike wrote: »

I've checked the sale of goods act and nothing jumped out at me that covers the situation here specifically. It was only a brief look though, so I could well have missed something.

However section 18 (rules for deciding when ownership transfers) looks relevant:



So OP owned the goods the instant the seller notified that the contract was in place. I don't see how the seller can unilaterally decide to take possession of the goods back.

That been said it would seem unreasonable to expect a store to hold goods indefinitely. Seeming unreasonable doesn't automatically mean it isn't allowed though.

Delivery was not postponed, this would require the buyer to contact the retailer to advise he would be delayed.

Most small claims cases come down to a test of reasonableness. A judge is not going to side with an unreasonable party simply because the contract is not explicit on a point - the tenet escapes me but basically you should not be allowed to profit or gain from your own inaction.

frugal_mike wrote: »

I think the sale of goods act has a term saying that the buyer must not unreasonably prevent delivery. Not being at home could be taken to be unreasonably preventing delivery.

As would not making yourself available to collect from an agreed place.

frugal_mike

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Delivery was not postponed, this would require the buyer to contact the retailer to advise he would be delayed.

Most small claims cases come down to a test of reasonableness. A judge is not going to side with an unreasonable party simply because the contract is not explicit on a point - the tenet escapes me but basically you should not be allowed to profit or gain from your own inaction.



As would not making yourself available to collect from an agreed place.

Delivery was postponed because it did not occur simultaneously with the conclusion of the contract. Unless agreed otherwise, payment and delivery must be concurrent.

It could be interpreted that delivery took place when the store told op that they had possession of the goods (section 29, rule 4 - rules of delivery).

However I fully agree that it is unreasonable to expect the store to hold them indefinitely. I was just looking for something that was vaguely explicit one way or the other.

halibut2209

Simplest solution is for the store to offer the goods at the original price.

shaun_from_Africa

earthstorm wrote: »

no your get the email giving these details when they item is ready to collect. If you dont collect then the store will return the item to the warehouse and you get refunded. No store can hold these items indefinite hoping you will collect someday.

My point exactly.
You get the e-mail with the details after payment has been made and accepted, and after the contract has been agreed by both seller and buyer.

I agree that it's reasonable to have a limited time that the goods can be kept in the store, so why doesn't the retailer state this in their T&C's which are viewable before any money changes hands? (after all, as has already been pointed out, other retailers manage to do this).