Golf clubs sent before finance accepted.

shaun_from_Africa

I disagree.

We reserve the right, at any time prior to acceptance, to refuse any order or any part of an order

And their terms and conditions state that accepted orders will be delivered so I'll ask again, if an order has been delivered, wouldn't it be more than reasonable to assume that the order has been accepted?

If I place an order online, fill out the application for credit, submit that application then a day or two later, the goods I ordered get delivered to me, I would assume that the order went through and the goods now belonged to me and I would think that many people would think the same if it happened to them.

DoaM

Contra proferentem is the term you were looking for.

Manxman_in_exile

jamiewatson84 said:

Thanks for all your comments (even the sarcastic ones!) Obviously I want them, or I wouldn't of ordered them. And I am also under no illusion that I NEED to pay for them (my moral compass told me that!) I failed the credit check for the finance, and obviously can't afford to pay outright hence wanting the interest free credit option.  But its their mistake not mine, and I feel like they should compensate me in some way (I like pinkshoes idea) 

Problem is you can't afford to pay for them except on credit - and they won't give you credit.  What pinkshoes is suggesting is not "compensation" as such, it's a way of trying to persuade AG to still sell the clubs to you at an affordable (to you) price bearing in mind you've now rendered them secondhand.  (ie you get a loan from somewhere else to pay AG and AG pay your loan costs).

Whether that works for AG or not, I've no idea.  What sort of value clubs are we talking about?  A few hundred quid or a couple of grand?

(Bearing in mind their T&Cs it's a remarkably stupid error for AG to make.  I use their local store a lot and like them, but never bought online).

Manxman_in_exile

I don't think that it is necessarily reasonable to go from "Accepted orders will be delivered by etc etc" to "Orders that are delivered by etc etc are accepted orders".  Mind you, I think it's an understandable error to make, and I probably would have made it myself.

If I'd ordered a new set of clubs online the first thing I'd do after they were delivered is try them out at the driving range.  I don't think the OP is at fault here - it's a remarkably daft error by AG, given their T&Cs which presumably they ought to understand.

If I was the OP I'd be arguing strenuously with AG that they should honour the payment terms that I thought had been agreed, notwithstanding that I've failed the credit check.  This all results from AG's mistake and they should put it right.  Failing that the OP surrenders the clubs to AG but shouldn't be penalised for their dimunition in value.  The OP is back in the same position as before all this.

(Also - if I were the OP and really wanted the clubs, I'd be asking myself if I really needed credit to buy them.  If I do I'd be questioning if I really "needed" them!)

Jumblebumble

Manxman_in_exile said:

jamiewatson84 said:

Thanks for all your comments (even the sarcastic ones!) Obviously I want them, or I wouldn't of ordered them. And I am also under no illusion that I NEED to pay for them (my moral compass told me that!) I failed the credit check for the finance, and obviously can't afford to pay outright hence wanting the interest free credit option.  But its their mistake not mine, and I feel like they should compensate me in some way (I like pinkshoes idea) 

Problem is you can't afford to pay for them except on credit - and they won't give you credit.  What pinkshoes is suggesting is not "compensation" as such, it's a way of trying to persuade AG to still sell the clubs to you at an affordable (to you) price bearing in mind you've now rendered them secondhand.  (ie you get a loan from somewhere else to pay AG and AG pay your loan costs).

Whether that works for AG or not, I've no idea.  What sort of value clubs are we talking about?  A few hundred quid or a couple of grand?

(Bearing in mind their T&Cs it's a remarkably stupid error for AG to make.  I use their local store a lot and like them, but never bought online).

The problem is that AG have given the Clubs on Credit
In the OPs shoes I would simply tell the shop that I will be setting up a standing order to pay them on the terms that both they and I agreed
They offered interest free credit and then delivered the goods and I can see no reason why the OP should be concerned whether this is financed by a third party or AG self finance it.
AG may not like it but that is their bad luck

shaun_from_Africa

Manxman_in_exile said:

I don't think that it is necessarily reasonable to go from "Accepted orders will be delivered by etc etc" to "Orders that are delivered by etc etc are accepted orders".  Mind you, I think it's an understandable error to make, and I probably would have made it myself.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make in response to this comment:

unholyangel said:

If a contract was formed on dispatch or confirmation email, you'd have an argument to make payments as agreed - because those were the terms the contract were formed under. 

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. There is no contract. The goods remained theirs and as such, you had a duty to take reasonable care of the goods - 

The OP had no idea that the contract hadn't been formed and from the evidence presented to them (no notification of declined finance and the delivery of the goods), I think it was reasonable of them to assume that the clubs belonged to them hence they were doing nothing wrong by using them.
I know that they still have to pay but if they decide not to and return the clubs instead, I don't see that they should be penalised because the clubs have now been used.

neilmcl

jamiewatson84 said:

Thanks for all your comments (even the sarcastic ones!) Obviously I want them, or I wouldn't of ordered them. And I am also under no illusion that I NEED to pay for them (my moral compass told me that!) I failed the credit check for the finance, and obviously can't afford to pay outright hence wanting the interest free credit option.  But its their mistake not mine, and I feel like they should compensate me in some way (I like pinkshoes idea) 

They have, they've allowed you to have free use of a set of golf clubs, now, and quite rightly, they want them back unless you can pay for them.

Ditzy_Mitzy

I feel like there's a piece of the puzzle missing here.  The OP stated that American Golf has given him the option to fill out a paper application for interest free credit, as a possible second bite of the cherry in respect of the loan application.  This suggests that he's failed the initial credit checking on a technicality rather than anything particularly serious.  It may be that the lender, whatever party that is, has carried out something like an Experian check on his identity, for anti-money laundering, credit history or similar, and it has failed.  Owing to this the applicant is now required to fill out a paper loan application and, if necessary, may be asked to provide identity verification documents or proof of income.  Is this the case - i.e. has American Golf given you the option of filling out a proper loan application?  If so, there's no definite refusal of credit at this stage.  A paper application may well be accepted, at which point the problem goes away as the clubs will be paid for. 

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa said:

I disagree.

We reserve the right, at any time prior to acceptance, to refuse any order or any part of an order

And their terms and conditions state that accepted orders will be delivered so I'll ask again, if an order has been delivered, wouldn't it be more than reasonable to assume that the order has been accepted?

If I place an order online, fill out the application for credit, submit that application then a day or two later, the goods I ordered get delivered to me, I would assume that the order went through and the goods now belonged to me and I would think that many people would think the same if it happened to them.

No because, again, their terms explicitly state that nothing else constitutes acceptance - only when payment is processed. There is only one question you need to ask, was the payment processed? If no, there is no contract - regardless of what else happened. 

Contradictory terms are terms which cannot both be true. That isn't the case here. If they hadn't put in the line about nothing else constituting acceptance then yes, there might be a possibility you could argue it was accepted. But they did so....