Urgent help needed! Right to cancel query!

unholyangel

Hintza wrote: »

The OP buys something doesn't have enough money so the seller agrees to three payments and the seller has unreasonable T&Cs?

If you walk in to a shop and buy something you are not automatically allowed a refund if you change your mind.

I read it as they also offered goods on credit with split payment options. In other words that it was part of a service they offer already rather than something done to accommodate the OP. Could be either way I suppose.

Of course if they have supplied goods by way of credit then they would likely need to be licensed by the FCA to do so....

And if they were licensed then that would point to them offering it as a service rather than accommodating the OP.

I do sometimes feel sorry for smaller businesses though - with the number of regulations they need to comply with its quite hard to ensure you comply with everything. With bigger companies.....well they should have more resources to ensure compliance.

Bantex_2

unholyangel wrote: »

I read it as they also offered goods on credit with split payment options. In other words that it was part of a service they offer already rather than something done to accommodate the OP. Could be either way I suppose.

Of course if they have supplied goods by way of credit then they would likely need to be licensed by the FCA to do so....

And if they were licensed then that would point to them offering it as a service rather than accommodating the OP.

I do sometimes feel sorry for smaller businesses though - with the number of regulations they need to comply with its quite hard to ensure you comply with everything. With bigger companies.....well they should have more resources to ensure compliance.

I believe a credit license is only required if interest in being charged.

unholyangel

Bantex wrote: »

I believe a credit license is only required if interest in being charged.

https://www.gov.uk/offering-credit-consumers-law

Specifically this paragraph:

Any business offering credit or financing to customer must be authorised by FCA, not just credit specialist companies. This includes non-profit organisations.

Bantex_2

unholyangel wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/offering-credit-consumers-law

Specifically this paragraph:

Does it define "credit"?

We allow most of our customers to settle invoices at the end of the following month. Never been told that we need a credit license.

Most freelancers allow terms based on a period after invoice date.

Would pubs running a slate need to register?

stork_2

unholyangel wrote: »

In law, there is no entitlement to any sum that can be reasonably saved - for example, by finding another customer.

Just as a customer cannot claim for losses incurred when a supplier cancels if they manage to find another supplier who will do the same deal.

Its covered by unfair contract terms (and in general, the principle of mitigation).

Yes, I agree. The point here is that the sum (loss of profit) can not be recovered by finding another customer. They are constantly looking for 'other' customers, and if the original customer had not breached the contract, the business would have made the profit on both transactions. It's not like a restaurant which, once it's full, it's full.

And a customer can in fact claim for losses if a supplier wrongly cancels, including the extra cost of getting someone else to perform the contract if that is more expensive.

unholyangel

Bantex wrote: »

Does it define "credit"?

We allow most of our customers to settle invoices at the end of the following month. Never been told that we need a credit license.

Most freelancers allow terms based on a period after invoice date.

Would pubs running a slate need to register?

Well it would depend on the payment terms. Current legislation (from memory anyways) allows "credit" (and i used the " as strictly its not credit in these conditions) within a strict set of conditions without requiring a credit license.

However what you said earlier about interest needing to be charged in order to be required to register is not true.

stork wrote: »

Yes, I agree. The point here is that the sum (loss of profit) can not be recovered by finding another customer. They are constantly looking for 'other' customers, and if the original customer had not breached the contract, the business would have made the profit on both transactions. It's not like a restaurant which, once it's full, it's full.

And a customer can in fact claim for losses if a supplier wrongly cancels, including the extra cost of getting someone else to perform the contract if that is more expensive.

Yes they can, no one is disputing that. What I said was that a consumer cannot claim if they find a supplier who will give them the same deal.

From OFTs unfair terms guidance:

5.6 Cancellation penalties and charges. A term which says, or is calculated to
suggest, that inflated sums could be claimed if the consumer cancels the
contract is likely to be challenged as unfair. For example, a penalty for
wrongful cancellation that requires payment of the whole contract price, or
a large part of it,20 is likely to be unfair if in some cases the supplier could
reasonably reduce ('mitigate') his loss. If, for example, he could find
another customer, the law would allow him to claim no more than the likely
costs of doing so, together with any difference between the original price
and the re-sale price.

Like I said, no entitlement to any sum that could be saved by finding another customer. And to clarify, I'm not saying OP would be able to cancel penalty free - just saying they're not necessarily entitled to the loss of profit just because the sale doesnt go ahead. They have a statutory duty to mitigate their losses - and they are not allowed to sit and allow their losses to happen where they can minimize or prevent them, thats just not how mitigation works.

Altarf

Hintza wrote: »

If you walk in to a shop and buy something you are not automatically allowed a refund if you change your mind.

I wouldn't know.

You may be used to dealing with disreputable retailers who consider it acceptable trapping customers in deals that they don't want.

I prefer to deal with retailers who want customers to be satisfied and return.

stork_2

unholyangel wrote: »

Like I said, no entitlement to any sum that could be saved by finding another customer. And to clarify, I'm not saying OP would be able to cancel penalty free - just saying they're not necessarily entitled to the loss of profit just because the sale doesnt go ahead. They have a statutory duty to mitigate their losses - and they are not allowed to sit and allow their losses to happen where they can minimize or prevent them, thats just not how mitigation works.

You're right as to the principle but not the application of it. The lost profit is not saved by finding another customer in this case, as it could be in a restaurant.

unholyangel

stork wrote: »

You're right as to the principle but not the application of it. The lost profit is not saved by finding another customer in this case, as it could be in a restaurant.

That may be the view that retailers take, but its certainly not the view of the courts.

For example see this page:
http://www.drukker.co.uk/publications/reference/mitigation-loss/#.VEBfDvldVp8

And if you'll notice it says stuff like:

The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but the first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a claimant a duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.

and:

Mitigation of loss is concerned with the claimant's responsibility to avoid avoidable losses by taking all reasonable steps to do so. Claimants are not permitted to stand aside and let damage accrue with the view that it will simply be recovered from the defendant in due course.

And:

Examples
Steps which are likely to be expected to be taken include:

a seller is required to make reasonable attempts to sell goods which have been wrongfully rejected by the buyer;

Now as you can see, one of the specific examples they give is exactly what you're saying doesn't happen.

If you dont agree with that page, I'll happily provide another saying the exact same thing. The fact they can produce/order more stock of the same item is irrelevant.

lucy03

Bantex wrote: »

Does it define "credit"?

We allow most of our customers to settle invoices at the end of the following month. Never been told that we need a credit license.

Most freelancers allow terms based on a period after invoice date.

Would pubs running a slate need to register?

The law used to say (and still might although things changed this year) that you don't need a licence if it's four or fewer instalments under a year.