Courier "lost" high value parcels

Alderbank

The OP's brother's business had to make an evidenced repayment of £510. That is a quantified loss.

p00hsticks

Alderbank said:

The OP's brother's business had to make an evidenced repayment of £510. That is a quantified loss.

I don't agree.

The OP's brother's business bought / made an item for £x.  
They sold it to a customer for £510. 
The customer paid the business £510, but the item was lost in transit and so the business had to refund that £510 to the customer.
The customer is in the same position as they were before the transaction took place, so they're all square. 
But the business is down £x, whatever x might be, and that is their quantified loss. 

tightauldgit

p00hsticks said:

Alderbank said:

The OP's brother's business had to make an evidenced repayment of £510. That is a quantified loss.

I don't agree.

The OP's brother's business bought / made an item for £x.  
They sold it to a customer for £510. 
The customer paid the business £510, but the item was lost in transit and so the business had to refund that £510 to the customer.
The customer is in the same position as they were before the transaction took place, so they're all square. 
But the business is down £x, whatever x might be, and that is their quantified loss. 

If the sale is lost then the profit on the sale can be part of the loss however. I think it really depends on the nature of the product and the transaction. 

If you drop a tin of beans in the supermarket then the supermarket just sells you a different tin of beans and replaces the one you broke. So they only have to buy a replacement tin of beans = the loss is the cost of the new tin. 

On the other hand if the nature of the product is something that can't be replaced or that the sale has been lost then you should be able to recover the total value to the business of the sale including the profit. 

What you cant do is get paid twice for the same transaction though, so if he managed to sell the customer another one instead of refunding then his loss is only the cost of the replacement item. 

Undervalued

tightauldgit said:

p00hsticks said:

Alderbank said:

The OP's brother's business had to make an evidenced repayment of £510. That is a quantified loss.

I don't agree.

The OP's brother's business bought / made an item for £x.  
They sold it to a customer for £510. 
The customer paid the business £510, but the item was lost in transit and so the business had to refund that £510 to the customer.
The customer is in the same position as they were before the transaction took place, so they're all square. 
But the business is down £x, whatever x might be, and that is their quantified loss. 

If the sale is lost then the profit on the sale can be part of the loss however. I think it really depends on the nature of the product and the transaction. 

If you drop a tin of beans in the supermarket then the supermarket just sells you a different tin of beans and replaces the one you broke. So they only have to buy a replacement tin of beans = the loss is the cost of the new tin. 

On the other hand if the nature of the product is something that can't be replaced or that the sale has been lost then you should be able to recover the total value to the business of the sale including the profit. 

What you cant do is get paid twice for the same transaction though, so if he managed to sell the customer another one instead of refunding then his loss is only the cost of the replacement item. 

If this was an item bought for resale the the OP's brother could discharge their responsibility to the customer by buying another at cost price and sending it to the customer. So their loss is the cost price of item, not the price they sold it for.

Plus, as this was a distance business sale, the customer had a right to return the item for a full refund. So even if the item had been delivered, the OP's brother wasn't guaranteed any profit at all until the time window for returns had elapsed as the sale could have been reversed.

tightauldgit

Undervalued said:

tightauldgit said:

p00hsticks said:

Alderbank said:

The OP's brother's business had to make an evidenced repayment of £510. That is a quantified loss.

I don't agree.

The OP's brother's business bought / made an item for £x.  
They sold it to a customer for £510. 
The customer paid the business £510, but the item was lost in transit and so the business had to refund that £510 to the customer.
The customer is in the same position as they were before the transaction took place, so they're all square. 
But the business is down £x, whatever x might be, and that is their quantified loss. 

If the sale is lost then the profit on the sale can be part of the loss however. I think it really depends on the nature of the product and the transaction. 

If you drop a tin of beans in the supermarket then the supermarket just sells you a different tin of beans and replaces the one you broke. So they only have to buy a replacement tin of beans = the loss is the cost of the new tin. 

On the other hand if the nature of the product is something that can't be replaced or that the sale has been lost then you should be able to recover the total value to the business of the sale including the profit. 

What you cant do is get paid twice for the same transaction though, so if he managed to sell the customer another one instead of refunding then his loss is only the cost of the replacement item. 

If this was an item bought for resale the the OP's brother could discharge their responsibility to the customer by buying another at cost price and sending it to the customer. So their loss is the cost price of item, not the price they sold it for.

Plus, as this was a distance business sale, the customer had a right to return the item for a full refund. So even if the item had been delivered, the OP's brother wasn't guaranteed any profit at all until the time window for returns had elapsed as the sale could have been reversed.

You're assuming a) that the item is readily available to be repurchased and b) that the customer still wants it and the purchase wasn't e.g. time sensitive. That the customer could have rejected the item is neither here  nor there because they never received it to have the opportunity to reject it. 

As i said, you can make a case either way depending on the specifics of the sale (which we don't know) but loss of profit is something that can be claimed for if you can demonstrate it as a loss. It would be up to a court to decide if its reasonable in this case. 

I would think that's something that a judge would discuss as part of the case and make a decision on. But it would also probably require the other party to bring it up and challenge the valuation. Which by the looks of things would require them talking to a proper lawyer. 

What I don't really understand is why, given they've admitted the mistake, they'd rather argue it than pay the £500. An hour and a a half of a decent lawyer is going to cost them £500.