Possible section 75, advice would be helpful

Dannyw35

Hi everyone,

Last week I received a stone dining table I ordered back in May.

When I originally got the quote, I asked for a round table that measured 160cm in diameter. The company said they could only make one that was 159cm as it was limited by the size of the stone itself. As it was close enough, I placed an order with a 2/3 deposit by bank transfer.

Some 13 weeks later the table was ready following a massive supplier issue with the stone we chose. The balance was paid via credit card and bank transfer.

A couple of days after delivery I had to measure something on the table only discover the table measured 151cm, somewhat smaller than (i) we requested, (ii) what we were told we would get and (iii) as stated on the invoice itself.

I've contacted the company to express that I'm not happy to receive a smaller table than as we had ordered. So far they have done little other than suggest the stone they received was smaller and thus limited the table they could make. I don't see how that is my problem since they didn't ask me to check a smaller table would be ok. Plus we needed 160cm based on the number of seats we wanted. Given the table is 10% smaller in area, it's still a significant difference.

If they do not offer another solution such as a replacement top, I am thinking to go to the card company to claim via section 75. I just wanted to get general opinion if this is misrepresentation given the invoice and emails all stated a table larger than the one received?

Thanks

eddddy

If they contractually agreed to supply a table that was 159cm, but they supplied one that is 151cm, that certainly sounds like breach of contract - which the CC company is jointly liable for under s75.

I guess you need to check the contract paperwork that you agreed to (if any), to see if it allows for a tolerance of 8cm, or has some other exclusions that the supplier is relying on.

unforeseen

Dannyw35 wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Last week I received a stone dining table I ordered back in May.

When I originally got the quote, I asked for a round table that measured 160cm in diameter. The company said they could only make one that was 159cm as it was limited by the size of the stone itself. As it was close enough, I placed an order with a 2/3 deposit by bank transfer.

Some 13 weeks later the table was ready following a massive supplier issue with the stone we chose. The balance was paid via credit card and bank transfer.

A couple of days after delivery I had to measure something on the table only discover the table measured 151cm, somewhat smaller than (i) we requested, (ii) what we were told we would get and (iii) as stated on the invoice itself.

I've contacted the company to express that I'm not happy to receive a smaller table than as we had ordered. So far they have done little other than suggest the stone they received was smaller and thus limited the table they could make. I don't see how that is my problem since they didn't ask me to check a smaller table would be ok. Plus we needed 160cm based on the number of seats we wanted. Given the table is 10% smaller in area, it's still a significant difference.

If they do not offer another solution such as a replacement top, I am thinking to go to the card company to claim via section 75. I just wanted to get general opinion if this is misrepresentation given the invoice and emails all stated a table larger than the one received?

Thanks

Actually the area is only 3.8% less

Dannyw35

Thanks for this. I've checked the invoice t&c and there is no mention of allowance for size difference, only that natural stone products are subject to natural imperfections.

I will wait for response before I reach out to the card company but given their past form, I'm not expecting them to progress this much.

Dannyw35

Actually the area is only 3.8% less

Is it? I'm going on the area of a table 159cm in diameter vs one that is 151cm... pie x r squared and all that...diff of 0.2m squared is about 10%

PeacefulWaters

unforeseen wrote: »

Actually the area is only 3.8% less

Go on, show us your maths!

eskbanker

Dannyw35 wrote: »

Is it? I'm going on the area of a table 159cm in diameter vs one that is 151cm... pie x r squared and all that...diff of 0.2m squared is about 10%

You're right - if the radius is about 95% of what it should be (as here) then the area will be about 95% of 95% = 90%

Don't let them fob you off with a 10% refund though!

Dannyw35

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Go on, show us your maths!

I'm intrigued also...I'm ashamed that it actually made me doubt myself enough to recalculate it!

eskbanker wrote: »

You're right - if the radius is about 95% of what it should be (as here) then the area will be about 95% of 95% = 90%

Don't let them fob you off with a 10% refund though!

Thanks. That was a far easier way to calculate it! And indeed, I won't settle for 10% refund given it's not actually the size we wanted or needed.

pvt

Dannyw35 wrote: »

Is it? I'm going on the area of a table 159cm in diameter vs one that is 151cm... pie x r squared and all that...diff of 0.2m squared is about 10%

Pie - did I laugh?

The more important measurement would surely be the circumference, which in this instance is about 25cm (or 5%) less than the OP expected.

It's hard to see how you would get another person round a table in a gap of 10 inches, but I do agree with the point of principle that you should get what you ordered, unless the Ts & Cs state that they have a right to vary the diameter by + or - 5%.