Deposit Paid - price not honoured

eskbanker

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Pedantic moment, but HMRC will receive 16.67% of the price paid.

Even more pedantic moment, but HMRC should receive 16.67% of the price paid, provided that the retailer complies fully with all relevant legislation and makes the necessary submissions and that they're accurate, etc! Based solely on what OP's said about them, they may not be averse to pulling the odd stunt....

fm32

Well it's a life lesson for me all this - thanks for all advice offered so far

fm32

Hi got an email to say because I broke the agreement which I knew nothing about at time of purchase they will offer me a 700 credit note as they ordered the ring again which I asked them not to because I was six months pregnant and ring size wasn't accurate.
What would thoughts be? Mine are that I still wouldn't be happy as only giving me to Friday to use it

eskbanker

Have they provided you with their terms and conditions and policies in writing yet? Until you have sight of those then you don't know how strong your (or their) case is and the cynic would suggest that they're trying to rush you into a decision before you're aware of all the facts.

When you say you asked them not to order the ring again, was this just verbal too? Their actions clearly indicate that they feel you ordered a specific ring, rather than simply reserving a discount - is any of the to-ing and fro-ing between you in writing or email form or has it all been verbal other than today's emails?

flower77g

I'd forward the email offering a £700 settlement to the credit card company and request the credit card company immediately pay the difference, because in sending it the seller has admited liability in writing and the seller has failed to provide the ring.

The seller has a problem with this transaction because they have failed to demand the whole amount in writing at any point and nobody has agreed in writing that time is of the essence.

As such if this went to a small claims court I don't think the buyer will be found in breach of contract, only the seller. It's entirely reasonable for the buyer to expect to be able to see the ring before making final payment. It also seems clear that the shop understands it is a wedding ring and therefore is required for the date of the wedding.

So the seller needs either to offer the ring originally ordered at the original sale price; or refund deposit in full.

rtho782

So, you put down £1250, then after 2 weeks they phoned you asking when you were coming in to pay the rest.

You then didn't pay the rest for another 4 weeks, where they phoned you again and asked you to pay within 5 days. You could have paid over the phone there and then as you did for the first 50%.

Then, you didn't contact them and left it more weeks, so they cancelled the order and kept the deposit.

Seems like they are within their rights to me.

eskbanker

flower77g wrote: »

I'd forward the email offering a £700 settlement to the credit card company and request the credit card company immediately pay the difference, because in sending it the seller has admited liability in writing

I don't believe the seller has admitted liability - OP says that the email from the seller continues to assert that she's in breach of contract, so the offer of a credit note for about half of what she's paid wouldn't typically be seen as any sort of admission, and may indeed have references to 'without prejudice', etc.

flower77g wrote: »

the seller has failed to provide the ring

As I understand it, the seller will claim they've made the ring available more than once but OP hasn't been able or willing to take it.

flower77g wrote: »

The seller has a problem with this transaction because they have failed to demand the whole amount in writing at any point and nobody has agreed in writing that time is of the essence.

OP says there was a written quotation, which presumably specifies the full price, I don't believe there is any obligation on a retailer to demand the whole amount in writing thereafter. My expectation would be that the quotation would have some small print saying words to the effect that proceeding with the quotation implicitly accepts the retailer's Ts & Cs, copies of which are available on request, etc.

flower77g wrote: »

As such if this went to a small claims court I don't think the buyer will be found in breach of contract, only the seller.

I think the crux of this is exactly what the contract is, in the apparent absence of any clear written definition.

flower77g wrote: »

It's entirely reasonable for the buyer to expect to be able to see the ring before making final payment.

As I understood earlier posts, the shop claims to have ordered the ring in and asked OP to return but she didn't.

flower77g wrote: »

It also seems clear that the shop understands it is a wedding ring and therefore is required for the date of the wedding.

Based on previous posts, the shop's line of argument is that the ring would be available well before the wedding, i.e. last year. OP's earlier posts seem to imply that she was willing to complete the deal within weeks of paying the deposit, but later posts suggest that she wanted to wait until after the birth - if this is the case, then this moving of the goalposts is potentially why the shop lost patience.


I'm not trying to defend the shop here by the way, just playing devil's advocate and trying to look at things objectively in the way that the credit card company and/or a court might. It seems that this is far from a cut and dried case in either direction and as per my post #18 it's not clear to me that a s75 claim would succeed on the basis of breach of contract, as the shop is likely to assert that they've acted in accordance with an implied contract.

CM66

I think the OP has to take some of the blame in being a bit of a difficult customer to the shop during the buying process.....

That said, as the shop have confirmed that they have only lost the cost of the freight of the ring, i would suggest that you should ask them to refund the deposit minus this cost.

IAmWales

CM66 wrote: »

I think the OP has to take some of the blame in being a bit of a difficult customer to the shop during the buying process.....

That said, as the shop have confirmed that they have only lost the cost of the freight of the ring, i would suggest that you should ask them to refund the deposit minus this cost.

Finally someone that understands the law rather than spouting their own opinion

The retailer is only entitled to retain an amount that would cover their losses, so in this case the cost of freight and (arguably) a small amount for chasing up the buyer.

More information here.

eskbanker

IAmWales wrote: »

Finally someone that understands the law rather than spouting their own opinion

The retailer is only entitled to retain an amount that would cover their losses, so in this case the cost of freight and (arguably) a small amount for chasing up the buyer.

More information here.

It's unavoidable to be dealing in opinions until more facts are known, and you've continued this by stating the retailer's rights as fact when it isn't as cut and dried as you're suggesting, although I do agree that it does seem likely that the shop's terms are unfair if they refuse to recognise actual losses.

However, this still leaves OP having to make this case rather than simply claiming from the card company under s75, so I stand by my previous recommendation to take advice from CAB or similar in order to assist with establishing such a case.

For one thing, the 2011 post you linked to refers to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which has since been superseded by The Consumer Rights Act 2015, so any claim against the shop obviously needs to take into account current legislation.