Kitchen Deposit - don’t wish to proceed

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

Well of course the OP can place an order for different things at a different price but that's not what they say they were sold at the show. They were sold an order (at a given price) that could be adjusted based on confirmation of dimensions. Unless the original agreement was that the price could change later then supplier has broken any original contract by changing the price. 

The only way I can see this kind of set up working is, you order A,B and C at the trade show on the day, they come and measure, if after measuring it transpires that you actually need A, B and D they'll amend the order to swap C for D but I can't see any trader agreeing to do this without it affecting the price, as that would be very generous. Perhaps the agreement does state this can be done without charge, hopefully we'll find out  

Well 'generous' depends on what kind of margins they are working to but if they can offer 50% off at a trade show then it suggests they aren't exactly working on razor thin profits. 

I agree it doesn't sound like a very sensible way to sell kitchens but it is what the OP says they agreed to. And given how 'exuberant' sales people sometimes get at trade shows it wouldn't surprise me if they were winging it slightly. 

Equally it would be somewhat 'generous' for a consumer to say 'here's my money to reserve a kitchen and charge me whatever you want to when I send you the actual true measurements' 

screech_78

tightauldgit said:

screech_78 said:

mummystudent said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

The OP can break the contract.

The kitchen company can claim damages but for a consumer contract damages are limited to their actual costs incurred until the contract was broken.

I agree that the sensible thing for the company to do would be to rescue the contract by brokering a deal.

The CMA guidance says the trader may claim costs or they may claim loss of profits, there is an exception where they may not opt to claim profits if they find another customer (which they should try to do).

For leisure activities on a certain date or tradespeople who have limit space that's probably easier to quantify, however when it comes to suppling goods, such as a kitchen, what's the limit? Obviously a business has a capacity as to how many orders they can fulfil but I think it would very hard for the consumer to argue they should just sell the kitchen to someone else as there's a constant supply and that other customer might have purchased anyway.

If the company is fitting it as well then that element of profit could probably be off set by finding another customer. 

If we want to delve into the contract situation further then I'd say there either a) isn't a contract to break or b) it was already broken by the supplier anyway. According to the facts of the OP

1. OP and supplier contracted to supply a kitchen (with dimensions to be confirmed) at a given price
2. OP confirmed the dimensions and the supplier came back with a new price 

Surely 2 means that either the supplier has broken the contract in 1 or that there was never a contract in the first place and this new price is just a quote to the OP which they are free to reject.

There isn't a contract to break as I haven't signed an order. Nothing has been ordered so there's no losses for them. There's been no site visit etc. 

Make no mistake about it, you do have a contract. You have paid a deposit, therefore you expected something in return. Contracts don’t have to be in written form. The problem is that it becomes difficult to prove what was agreed.

You also have no idea what losses they have incurred. They might not have any however your argument can’t assume that. 

Contracts work both ways though. if the supplier insists there is a contract then they should honour that agreement and price. 

If their argument is that 'well now you've told us the dimensions we have a right to alter our pricing', then equally once the buyer knows the true pricing they have a right to not go ahead.

But I'm basing that on what the OP has told us was agreed.   

I don’t disagree with you. The OP is under the impression that they don’t have a contract though and I’m only pointing out that isn’t true. 

tightauldgit

screech_78 said:

tightauldgit said:

screech_78 said:

mummystudent said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

The OP can break the contract.

The kitchen company can claim damages but for a consumer contract damages are limited to their actual costs incurred until the contract was broken.

I agree that the sensible thing for the company to do would be to rescue the contract by brokering a deal.

The CMA guidance says the trader may claim costs or they may claim loss of profits, there is an exception where they may not opt to claim profits if they find another customer (which they should try to do).

For leisure activities on a certain date or tradespeople who have limit space that's probably easier to quantify, however when it comes to suppling goods, such as a kitchen, what's the limit? Obviously a business has a capacity as to how many orders they can fulfil but I think it would very hard for the consumer to argue they should just sell the kitchen to someone else as there's a constant supply and that other customer might have purchased anyway.

If the company is fitting it as well then that element of profit could probably be off set by finding another customer. 

If we want to delve into the contract situation further then I'd say there either a) isn't a contract to break or b) it was already broken by the supplier anyway. According to the facts of the OP

1. OP and supplier contracted to supply a kitchen (with dimensions to be confirmed) at a given price
2. OP confirmed the dimensions and the supplier came back with a new price 

Surely 2 means that either the supplier has broken the contract in 1 or that there was never a contract in the first place and this new price is just a quote to the OP which they are free to reject.

There isn't a contract to break as I haven't signed an order. Nothing has been ordered so there's no losses for them. There's been no site visit etc. 

Make no mistake about it, you do have a contract. You have paid a deposit, therefore you expected something in return. Contracts don’t have to be in written form. The problem is that it becomes difficult to prove what was agreed.

You also have no idea what losses they have incurred. They might not have any however your argument can’t assume that. 

Contracts work both ways though. if the supplier insists there is a contract then they should honour that agreement and price. 

If their argument is that 'well now you've told us the dimensions we have a right to alter our pricing', then equally once the buyer knows the true pricing they have a right to not go ahead.

But I'm basing that on what the OP has told us was agreed.   

I don’t disagree with you. The OP is under the impression that they don’t have a contract though and I’m only pointing out that isn’t true. 

On the face of it you'd think so but if my life depended on it I'd make a good fist of arguing that the original agreement wasn't specific enough to create a legally binding contract. Been a while since I did a contract law class mind you.

powerful_Rogue

tightauldgit said:

screech_78 said:

tightauldgit said:

screech_78 said:

mummystudent said:

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

The OP can break the contract.

The kitchen company can claim damages but for a consumer contract damages are limited to their actual costs incurred until the contract was broken.

I agree that the sensible thing for the company to do would be to rescue the contract by brokering a deal.

The CMA guidance says the trader may claim costs or they may claim loss of profits, there is an exception where they may not opt to claim profits if they find another customer (which they should try to do).

For leisure activities on a certain date or tradespeople who have limit space that's probably easier to quantify, however when it comes to suppling goods, such as a kitchen, what's the limit? Obviously a business has a capacity as to how many orders they can fulfil but I think it would very hard for the consumer to argue they should just sell the kitchen to someone else as there's a constant supply and that other customer might have purchased anyway.

If the company is fitting it as well then that element of profit could probably be off set by finding another customer. 

If we want to delve into the contract situation further then I'd say there either a) isn't a contract to break or b) it was already broken by the supplier anyway. According to the facts of the OP

1. OP and supplier contracted to supply a kitchen (with dimensions to be confirmed) at a given price
2. OP confirmed the dimensions and the supplier came back with a new price 

Surely 2 means that either the supplier has broken the contract in 1 or that there was never a contract in the first place and this new price is just a quote to the OP which they are free to reject.

There isn't a contract to break as I haven't signed an order. Nothing has been ordered so there's no losses for them. There's been no site visit etc. 

Make no mistake about it, you do have a contract. You have paid a deposit, therefore you expected something in return. Contracts don’t have to be in written form. The problem is that it becomes difficult to prove what was agreed.

You also have no idea what losses they have incurred. They might not have any however your argument can’t assume that. 

Contracts work both ways though. if the supplier insists there is a contract then they should honour that agreement and price. 

If their argument is that 'well now you've told us the dimensions we have a right to alter our pricing', then equally once the buyer knows the true pricing they have a right to not go ahead.

But I'm basing that on what the OP has told us was agreed.   

I don’t disagree with you. The OP is under the impression that they don’t have a contract though and I’m only pointing out that isn’t true. 

On the face of it you'd think so but if my life depended on it I'd make a good fist of arguing that the original agreement wasn't specific enough to create a legally binding contract. Been a while since I did a contract law class mind you.

That's quite a claim considering no-one on here as seen the contract and what it does/doesn't contain.

bris

tightauldgit said:

bris said:

tightauldgit said:

How much deposit have you paid? I think companies can only actually charge you for reasonable actual costs incurred but it might be a battle to get it back.

That's not true, it depends really on whether their is a right to cancel or not. Trade fairs for some traders may be deemed their place of business which has no right to cancel.

If the kitchen company only use  trade shows as a regular place of business then its their business premises.

On the other hand if they only do them now and then and they have a real place of business say in an industrial estate or high street store then it could be seen as a distance sale.

The ECJ have debated it and thats what they have came up with.

It would probably take a court case on a case by case basis.

But lets say the trade fairs are their place of business for arguments sake then their is no right to cancel and that could have more problems than just the deposit.

That's all very interesting but I never said they have a right to cancel based on distance selling regs.

I said they can cancel the order (breaking the contract) and the company should only be able to recover their costs - but it might end up in a court hearing, hence my comment on a potential battle.  

I know what you said but you cant just break a contract.

Loss of profit is a thing, its in contract law, there are consequences for breaking contracts and it's not just a few quid like you seem to think.