Trying to cancel a furniture order due for delivery June/July 2022

k3lvc

Jenni_D said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

*I suppose the trader could possibly argue that there is in effect very little difference between buying at their own business premises and buying at the IHS.  Presumably potential consumers go to the IHS with a view to buying something just like they would at the trader's premises?  I don't know...

Do people go to the Motor Show* to buy a car? Do they go to the Bike Show* to buy a motorbike? Or do they go to events like this to get an idea of what is actually available? (i.e. to see things they'd never consider buying, and other things that might take their interest so the visit to the show is a form of research).

* Names not verified, but people should know what I mean - anyone picking apart this post because I haven't used specific show names will be treated with disdain.

I'm going to be picky but for a different reason - they don't go to the Bike/Car show to buy a bike/car but they do generally come away laden with 'bargain' accessories from the multitude of 'retailer' rather than 'manufacturer' stands at these events. That said these particular events have worked hard over the years to exclude the 'magic potato peeler'/'eternally sharp knife' type people who frequent such events.

In the same way no-one goes to Ideal Home Show to buy a 'Home' but that event in particular seems to generate it's own group of 'retailers', some of which have questionable understanding of the laws and disappear soon after the even only to reappear under a new name at the next such event.

IMHO anyone making a significant purchase at such an event on the basis of it's 'bargain' nature needs to give their head a wobble - unless it's last day and you manage to bag an ex display item that you take with you there and then 

Thrugelmir

Jenni_D said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

*I suppose the trader could possibly argue that there is in effect very little difference between buying at their own business premises and buying at the IHS.  Presumably potential consumers go to the IHS with a view to buying something just like they would at the trader's premises?  I don't know...

Do people go to the Motor Show* to buy a car? Do they go to the Bike Show* to buy a motorbike? 

Chelsea Flower Show?  

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

Business premises are defined as follows:

“business premises” in relation to a trader means—

(a) any immovable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a permanent basis, or

(b) any movable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a usual basis

So the question should be whether the venue for the Ideal Home Show is either "immovable" or "movable" retail premises.

I would take it that a stand at these shows would be a "Movable retail premises" As they may well have their own stand on a regular basis at these events around the country.

Would be interesting to see if it went to court how it would go. Wonder given this would be a Chip/Pin payment would factor in, as opposed to customer not present?

Ergates

Jenni_D said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

*I suppose the trader could possibly argue that there is in effect very little difference between buying at their own business premises and buying at the IHS.  Presumably potential consumers go to the IHS with a view to buying something just like they would at the trader's premises?  I don't know...

Do people go to the Motor Show* to buy a car? Do they go to the Bike Show* to buy a motorbike? Or do they go to events like this to get an idea of what is actually available? (i.e. to see things they'd never consider buying, and other things that might take their interest so the visit to the show is a form of research).

* Names not verified, but people should know what I mean - anyone picking apart this post because I haven't used specific show names will be treated with disdain.

The same thing could be said for a car showroom or a furniture shop - people generally visit multiple places before purchasing anything - but the law offers no specific protections there.

Ergates

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

 
...So it seems to centre on the place not being a regular place of trade, even if the event was yearly or 6 monthly and they attended each time I don't think that would be classed as regular so you'd have the right to cancel. If it was fortnightly or monthly then it may be classed as regular and possibly no right to cancel.

What is the purpose of allowing cancellation for "off-premises" sales anyway?  Distance sales I can understand, but I find off-premises a bit more difficult.

I presume the point is that if you go to a trader's premises voluntarily that you are less likely to be "hard sold" into a purchase you don't want to make, whereas if you are ambushed at home or somewhere else that is not the trader's usual place of business, you might get browbeaten into a purchase?  I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me.*

However, the law does allow a consumer to cancel an off-premises purchase.  An off-premises puchase is made when a contract is made somewhere other than the trader's "business premises".

Business premises are defined as follows:

“business premises” in relation to a trader means—

(a) any immovable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a permanent basis, or

(b) any movable retail premises where the activity of the trader is carried out on a usual basis

So the question should be whether the venue for the Ideal Home Show is either "immovable" or "movable" retail premises.

As another poster pointed out above, Olympia - or wherever the venue was - could hardly be described as "movable", so unless the trader is selling there permanently it must be an off-premises sale.

Unless, that is, the trader can argue that their annual stall at Olympia (or wherever) is "movable" and that their annual business there is "usual".

What can be said is that the trader's explanation that their stall at Olympia is "an extension of their business premises" seems to have no justification in the legislation at all as I read it.

I think if I were the OP I'd be inclined to push them a bit further...


*I suppose the trader could possibly argue that there is in effect very little difference between buying at their own business premises and buying at the IHS.  Presumably potential consumers go to the IHS with a view to buying something just like they would at the trader's premises?  I don't know...

I'd say the purpose of off-premises protections are, as you say, to protect people from pushy salesmen who come to your home, or whisk you away to some flashy timeshare showroom or whatever.  The captive audience effect.

I don't believe it was *intended* to cover situations like this where the customer has gone to the retailers place of business - even if it's not the retails "permanent" place of business.  From a logical perspective, I'd concur with the companies explanation that the show was an extension of the their business premises, and that using off premises purchase protections is using a technicality.

However, that doesn't mean it won't work.

Jenni_D

Ergates said:

Jenni_D said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

*I suppose the trader could possibly argue that there is in effect very little difference between buying at their own business premises and buying at the IHS.  Presumably potential consumers go to the IHS with a view to buying something just like they would at the trader's premises?  I don't know...

Do people go to the Motor Show* to buy a car? Do they go to the Bike Show* to buy a motorbike? Or do they go to events like this to get an idea of what is actually available? (i.e. to see things they'd never consider buying, and other things that might take their interest so the visit to the show is a form of research).

* Names not verified, but people should know what I mean - anyone picking apart this post because I haven't used specific show names will be treated with disdain.

The same thing could be said for a car showroom or a furniture shop - people generally visit multiple places before purchasing anything - but the law offers no specific protections there.

But that would then be their normal places of business. The crux of it comes down to whether them setting up at such shows would fall under item b) previously referenced - and I'm not sure there's an easy answer; I'm certainly not aware of any binding (High Court or higher) or persuasive (Appeal Court [in the County Court]) rulings on this, and any County Court ruling has no binding or persuasive element to it.

Manxman_in_exile

My first thought and gut feeling was that this must be an off-premises contract.  Olympia must be "immovable" premises and I doubt they carry out business there on a permanent basis.

But on second thoughts, maybe their stall - or whatever it is - at Olympia is "movable" premises and they carry out business there on a usual basis.

What does "usual" mean?  I wouldn't say somebody could carry on their business at the IHS on a frequent basis - unless annually counted as "frequent".  If they have a stall at the IHS each year that could count as "regular", but would annually also count as "usual"?

I'm not 100% sure myself, but if I were the OP I'd be inclined to push them a bit further to see if they blink first ...

Ergates

Manxman_in_exile said:

My first thought and gut feeling was that this must be an off-premises contract.  Olympia must be "immovable" premises and I doubt they carry out business there on a permanent basis.

But on second thoughts, maybe their stall - or whatever it is - at Olympia is "movable" premises and they carry out business there on a usual basis.

What does "usual" mean?  I wouldn't say somebody could carry on their business at the IHS on a frequent basis - unless annually counted as "frequent".  If they have a stall at the IHS each year that could count as "regular", but would annually also count as "usual"?

I'm not 100% sure myself, but if I were the OP I'd be inclined to push them a bit further to see if they blink first ...

That's more or less what I'm thinking.

I'm pretty sure this isn't in the *spirit* of the relevant piece of legislation, but it kind of sounds like it would be covered by the specific wording used.  A side effect rather than an intention.