Tricky Return

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

THANK YOU!! (a) applies in my case because the seller refused to deliver the goods to me and instead chose to give the refund of their own accord.

Is there a time limit in which I have to do the small claims thing?

:rotfl:
But you did receive the goods! You just returned them because they were faulty!

peachyprice

shak2 wrote: »

THANK YOU!! (a) applies in my case because the seller refused to deliver the goods to me and instead chose to give the refund of their own accord.

Is there a time limit in which I have to do the small claims thing?

Oh, !!!!!!, they did deliver, you rejected it when you sent it back. This does not apply to you at all.

I have never seen such incessant, idiotic clutching at straws. You are one prize prat.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

Is there a time limit in which I have to do the small claims thing?

Yes. Six years.

shak2

wealdroam wrote: »

Yes. Six years.

Thank you. Then I will wait.

halibut2209

Wait for what?

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

Thank you. Then I will wait.

The fees you stand to lose will only rise.

Mitigate your loss... get it done now!

matttye

halibut2209 wrote: »

Wait for what?

Magical faeries and a full moon.

neilmcl

shak2 wrote: »

Thank you. Then I will wait.

What for...pigs to fly, hell to freeze over, or even more of a slim chance, that someone will actually agree with you.

vaio

halibut2209 wrote: »

Completely different situation. In that case the contract to deliver what was agreed was never fulfilled. In yours, the contract WAS fulfilled.

Try again

Nah, the contract continues after initial delivery, that why you can use it to obtain a remedy for any subsequent problems.

In this case the contract was the OP gets a widget and the seller gets £x.

The OP hasn't got his widget and wants the seller to complete the contract and supply one (or pay the costs of sourcing one elsewhere) rather than rescinding and giving him a refund.

ie he wants to be where he would have been had the contract not been breached rather then where he was before the contract was formed.

Assuming he's not a troll then he's wasting his time on here and needs to get over to the legalbeagles site where the posters generally understand the basics of contract law 101.

Contracts are binding on both parties and if one party breaches it then any consequential costs flowing from the breach can be recovered to put the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the breach not happened. It's how contracts work.

SoG is a distillation of the common law of contracts but it sits alongside the common law, it doesn't replace it so all common law remedies can also be used if appropriate. In most cases the SoG remedies are just fine, but in some case they aren't and in those the common law can still be used.

As an example....SoG doesn't (I think) deal explicitly with consequential costs so if I buy a bath, get it fitted & tiled etc and it later develops a fault then for the retailer just to refund the purchase price or replace the bath as per SoG isn't sufficient and I'd need to recover the removal/refitting costs using the common law principles that have been developed over the last couple of hundred years.

RosiPossum

But they did send the widget, it was faulty, he rejected it. They refunded. It's not like they didn't send it.