Charged due to small print rule

powerful_Rogue

Zandoni wrote: »

The OP was originally told the earliest he would get there was 9.00, is it reasonable to change this the day before? I think not.

If the OP didn't think it was reasonable, why did she not turn down the earlier appointment?

ThumbRemote

JReacher1 wrote: »

If they couldn't do the new time they shouldn't have accepted it when it was given to them.

It's pretty standard when dealing with deliveries, contractors etc. to be given an initial large timeframe and then the day before given a smaller window.

Yes, but in that case the smaller window is expected to be a subset of the initial timeframe - not an hour before the earliest start point you were previously given.

JReacher1

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Yes, but in that case the smaller window is expected to be a subset of the initial timeframe - not an hour before the earliest start point you were previously given.

Maybe so but the OP was told the new timeframe so if she couldn't find cover between 8-9am then she shouldn't have committed to the time.

Zandoni

JReacher1 wrote: »

Maybe so but the OP was told the new timeframe so if she couldn't find cover between 8-9am then she shouldn't have committed to the time.

It depends how the OP was informed of the time zone changing, maybe they came home from work and it was an answerphone message. We need the OP to tell us.

ami66

JReacher1 wrote: »

Maybe so but the OP was told the new timeframe so if she couldn't find cover between 8-9am then she shouldn't have committed to the time.

When we accepted the day appoint it was 10 days earlier and we could cover the full day.

When we were contacted the day before we were still able to cover the appointment - or so we thought.

It was only AFTER the visit that we found that we needed to have an over 18 year old present.

Over the last 2 to 3 years my sons have dealt with various engineers calls for us. They are both mature young men who have had weekend jobs since they were 13 and perfectly able to show someone a non working appliance, explain it's fault, watch it be fixed and sign a piece of paper to confirm the visit.

My sensible boys are simply trying to help out their hard working parents and save us from having to use some of our holiday allowance just to sit at home all day when they are already there.

Nobody has objected before bar one who told me at the time I made the appointment that either my husband or myself had to be present not a teenager or another adult due the equipment involved.

But this company NEVER told us in print or verbally prior to the visit of this particular requirement. That is what has annoyed the hell out of me, if they have terms that they will rely on to charge us surely they should be obliged to either explain them in full or provide us with a copy of them.

Of course we may not have read them but then it would be our fault :rotfl:

JReacher1

Sounds like you've got lucky in the past with previous visits.

I don't see how you can think it's ok for a minor to sign approval for a job done at your house. If the engineer had messed it up you could have quite rightly complained that an underage boys signature is not proof that you were happy with the job.

Also you must have received terms and conditions with the original warranty. Is there anything in that about this scenario?

mije1983

Zandoni wrote: »

The OP was originally told the earliest he would get there was 9.00, is it reasonable to change this the day before? I think not.

Was that the issue that the OP was complaining about? I think not.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

You have a basic understanding of contract law which you are trying to fit into this scenario when it doesn't apply. It is also irrelevant as the OP has to pay for one of the two visits so you're just pedantically trying to say it's the second one she has to pay for (which is inaccurate).

Either way it doesn't really help the OP!

I do hope you understand the irony in your post.

You dont even seem to be aware of the significance of consideration or how their term potentially amounts to a financial penalty.

A contract is not valid without consideration.

You are only entitled to direct losses incurred as a result of the breach of contract. OP could instead go back to the retailer (yes they might have to obtain a report but this would be refunded if found in their favour) instead of getting a 2nd appointment from manufacturer.

But unless there is consideration, no legally binding contract exists therefore OP has no contractual obligations to breach and therefore cannot be required to pay compensation for a breach of contract.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

I do hope you understand the irony in your post.

You dont even seem to be aware of the significance of consideration or how their term potentially amounts to a financial penalty.

A contract is not valid without consideration.

You are only entitled to direct losses incurred as a result of the breach of contract. OP could instead go back to the retailer (yes they might have to obtain a report but this would be refunded if found in their favour) instead of getting a 2nd appointment from manufacturer.

But unless there is consideration, no legally binding contract exists therefore OP has no contractual obligations to breach and therefore cannot be required to pay compensation for a breach of contract.

I find it ironic that you don't appear to understand what irony means

You appear to be making up facts that are not confirmed to try and prove your incorrect statement is correct.

I don't believe it has been stated the warranty is with the manufacturer. You are just assuming this. It is also possible that the company that fulfils the warranty will not get paid for the first visit due to the breach of contract by the OP and therefore will have provable losses by this. It is impossible to say as we don't know this information.

I don't understand why you are guessing key facts? I can only assume you are a bit trigger happy and like to post incorrect information as quickly as possible in case someone else gets there first and steals your thunder.

This is meant to be a helpful consumer site not a competiton.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

I find it ironic that you don't appear to understand what irony means

You appear to be making up facts that are not confirmed to try and prove your incorrect statement is correct.

I don't believe it has been stated the warranty is with the manufacturer. You are just assuming this. It is also possible that the company that fulfils the warranty will not get paid for the first visit due to the breach of contract by the OP and therefore will have provable losses by this. It is impossible to say as we don't know this information.

I don't understand why you are guessing key facts? I can only assume you are a bit trigger happy and like to post incorrect information as quickly as possible in case someone else gets there first and steals your thunder.

This is meant to be a helpful consumer site not a competiton.

So I take it you havent assumed anything?

They have to make two trips due to the fact the OP was not present when the engineer called. ...

He's a contractor for a company and will have several jobs that day. He can't just wait as that would throw out his whole days appointments and he would be in trouble with his employers.

The only person who has done nothing wrong in this whole scenario is the contractor....

If they couldn't do the new time they shouldn't have accepted it when it was given to them.

It's pretty standard when dealing with deliveries, contractors etc. to be given an initial large timeframe and then the day before given a smaller window....

Maybe so but the OP was told the new timeframe so if she couldn't find cover between 8-9am then she shouldn't have committed to the time....

Also you must have received terms and conditions with the original warranty. Is there anything in that about this scenario?

Now, who is it that has a habit of assuming?

Likewise, you're also assuming the advice I'm giving is incorrect when I've already said its dependent on the ins and outs.

But that still doesnt change the fact (and yes its a fact, look it up) that a contract needs consideration in order for it to be valid/binding.

As for the not getting paid part...behave. Or if you prefer phrasing of your own....

You appear to be making up facts that are not confirmed to try and prove your incorrect statement is correct