Deposit Paid but Credit Refused

Poten

Arleen wrote: »

Court will have two issues with that:
1. Lack of evidence. OP will say "said so", the company will say "said not" and it's a wash. Actually even if the company confirms that the OP "said so", then even that doesn't negate the paper contract. They simply could take his words as "well, without financing we can't go ahead but we love it so much here is our deposit anyway".
2. There is a paper contract that says differently (as every deposit by default is non-refundable unless stated differently in the contract), and it presumably was signed by both parties. If there were some extra provisions to the contract then they should've been put in the contract.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

1. A civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. A judge does not just say 'its a wash.' Perhaps the OP had the conversation in front of someone they knew? Even if not, judges regularly make decisions in civil cases based on who's evidence they believe.

2. I'm not sure where you get the impression from that a deposit is automatically non refundable. Im not aware of any legal basis for making such a statement. In fact, I can think of many examples were the position in law is that the deposit is explicitly refundable (ie. a tenancy deposit).

CodeMonkey99 wrote: »

Regarding this place, some of you seem to get your kicks on here taking pleasure from other peoples misery - perhaps some of those who responded in this thread should sit back and have a little think about why they hang around in this forum - me, I won't be back.

Lots of people on MSE tend to make legal judgements based on what they've heard down the pub, what they 'think' is 'fair' and any other manner of logic. I dont know which one is my favourite one out of 'it has to be signed to be a contract,' or 'its in the T&Cs so you are bound by it.'

The correct approach here (which nobody mentioned) is that this is basically an unfair contract term. Fairly certain this legislation got amended and rehashed sometime within the last year so feel quoting the old act would be out of date, but I am fairly certain the legislation is the same (in fact, i think it was amended to go further for consumers). IMO, a clause that renders paying thousands of pounds potentially non refundable falls foul of Denning's red hand rule. So if they didnt point it out, in big bold red letters with a big red hand pointing to it (and you say they didnt mention it) then its an unfair contract term and therefore doesnt exist as part of the contract.

That said, going to court is time consuming and stressful, so if youre happy with 75% then fair enough.