We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Cancelled Order...After Two months...

Options
2

Comments

  • Azari
    Azari Posts: 4,317 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You were so eager to jump in and attack other posters you didn't even bother confirming any information before doing so.

    What information do you believe needed confirming?

    It seems to me that in your rush to attack me you have not confirmed that what another poster has said was true, merely assumed it was and waded in.
    As it it was an online purchase, are you going to admit that the "advice" you gave above is totally incorrect?

    I think you are confused. :)
    There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.
  • wealdroam
    wealdroam Posts: 19,180 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    I'll expand on my earlier post.

    Section 28 of The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states (in its entirety):
    28 Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions.

    Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions, that is to say, the seller must be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price and the buyer must be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of the goods.
    Thus the actions of the buyer to pay and the seller to deliver the goods are usually deemed to happen at the same time.

    The first phrase in that quote, "Unless otherwise agreed" allows the buyer and seller to agree that something else should happen.

    This what has happened in this case... the buyer and seller have agreed that the commitment of both the buyer and seller, i.e. the formation of the contract, should not take place until the goods are despatched.
  • I'm not in the least bit confused.
    In the opening post it was stated that it was an online purchase and unless you can show that the T&c's agreed to are illegal, no contract had been formed, hence no breech of contract has taken place.

    And no, I didn't jump in to attack you, I simply stated that what you posted was incorrect with regards to breech of contract.

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/different-ways-of-buying/buying-by-internet-mail-order-or-phone/how-a-distance-sale-contract-is-made/

    Just about every retailer who sells online states in their T&C's that a contract is only formed on dispatch of the goods.
    Are you saying that every single retailer who states this is acting illegally?

    Ddespite your claim that this forum is "patrolled by retailers", I am not a retailer. I'm simply someone who is not so blinkered as to only ever have the view that the consumer is always right and the retailer is always wrong.
  • Azari
    Azari Posts: 4,317 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 10 September 2015 at 12:05PM
    Be aware when reading the following post that it specifically relates to the situation outlined in the OP.

    It is the amount of money and the length of time the retailer waited to tell the customer that makes the case a little less straightforward.
    I'm not in the least bit confused.
    In the opening post it was stated that it was an online purchase and unless you can show that the T&c's agreed to are illegal, no contract had been formed, hence no breech of contract has taken place.

    ROFLMAO. :rotfl:

    Actually, you have that completely the wrong way round. There is prima facie evidence that a contract has been formed. Unless you can show that the relevant t & c's have been tested in court and shown to be valid, a contract certainly has been formed.

    In many cases terms that say a contract is only formed on delivery may be acceptable, but if there are any terms that prevent you from cancelling the order before delivery a judge may well decide that the terms are too unbalanced and set them aside.

    It's all to do with the 'unfair terms in consumer contracts' legislation.
    And no, I didn't jump in to attack you, I simply stated that what you posted was incorrect with regards to breech of contract.

    And you were wrong.

    And it's 'breach', not 'breech'.
    Just about every retailer who sells online states in their T&C's that a contract is only formed on dispatch of the goods.
    Are you saying that every single retailer who states this is acting illegally?

    You are, once again, demonstrating you ignorance of the law.

    Putting an unfair term in a contract is not acting illegally. It just means that the term is likely to be ignored if it is ever tested in court.
    I'm simply someone who is not so blinkered as to only ever have the view that the consumer is always right and the retailer is always wrong.

    Your problem seems to be that you are objecting very vociferously because I will not go along with the 'Next are absolutely correct - end of story' line.

    All I have suggested is that the OP needs to get qualified advice. It may well be that if you ordered a book for £5, and the order was cancelled a week later, a term such as the one under discussion would be deemed reasonable. However, when someone takes £1400 and keeps the money for 9 weeks before telling the customer that the are not fulfilling, a judge might take a quite different view of the fairness of the term. Any clause stating that the customer could not cancel the order before delivery would doubtless also be taken into account.

    According to your rather naive view, it would be perfectly possible for someone to go into business selling things on the internet, taking the money and investing it, and then refunding the customers three months later.

    Do you really believe that the law would allow that?
    There are two types of people in the world: Those that can extrapolate information.
  • wealdroam
    wealdroam Posts: 19,180 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Azari wrote: »
    In many cases terms that say a contract is only formed on delivery may be acceptable, but if there are any terms that prevent you from cancelling the order before delivery a judge may well decide that the terms are too unbalanced and set them aside.

    It's all to do with the 'unfair terms in consumer contracts' legislation.
    That's right.

    In this case there is no such term. The opposite is true.
    My earlier quote from Next's T&Cs includes:
    Until the goods are despatched the order may not be accepted by Next or may be cancelled by you.
  • Thanks for all your comments guys! Interesting!
    Next have now offered £50 compensation!!!! The cheek.
    We've asked for the whole value to be refunded in cash. Don't want the vouchers. Have no intention shopping with Next ever again. But,they won't budge. Citing FCA rules!
    Personally, I can't see why they don't make the compensation the value of the vouchers!!
  • wealdroam
    wealdroam Posts: 19,180 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Thanks for all your comments guys! Interesting!
    Next have now offered £50 compensation!!!! The cheek.
    We've asked for the whole value to be refunded in cash. Don't want the vouchers. Have no intention shopping with Next ever again. But,they won't budge. Citing FCA rules!
    Personally, I can't see why they don't make the compensation the value of the vouchers!!
    Well done on getting that extra £50 from them.

    As has been mentioned earlier, Next are being quite reasonable in refunding you using the method you paid.
  • Sadly, I don't see the method of refund as being reasonable. I don't want to deal with Next again after this experience. So having £230 in vouchers means I'm out of pocket because of their incompetence.
    That's not right.
  • SnowTiger
    SnowTiger Posts: 4,461 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    So having £230 in vouchers means I'm out of pocket because of their incompetence.
    That's not right.

    Why did you buy the vouchers?
  • daytona0
    daytona0 Posts: 2,358 Forumite
    edited 25 September 2015 at 11:19PM
    SnowTiger wrote: »
    Why did you buy the vouchers?

    I reckon it was a gift!

    Two things which could provide us with a few giggles;

    1. OP could faff around for too long and have the vouchers expire!

    2. A refund of the vouchers is offered, sent to the person who bought them and that money is not returned to OP.

    Or maybe OP will wake up to realise that;

    - It is extremely unlikely that the vouchers can be converted into cash (terms and conditions etc)

    - £50 in cash OR 10% off (£140 saving if they bought another £1400 sofa) plus the vouchers is a good result!

    - They can PROFIT from the situation by accepting the £50 cash and then flogging the £230 voucher to someone for £200 = a +£20 profit for OP and some lucky soul gets a £30 discount on their order.

    But hey ho!

    U6wL9KH.png
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.