Details of products given by sales person

Eney

Hi.
Is it correct that if you make a purchase decision made on the basis of details of a product given by the sales staff, do they form part of the contract? If any of the details turns out to be false, can I reject the products as a breach of contract?

Thank you.

Aylesbury_Duck

Eney said:

Hi.
Is it correct that if you make a purchase decision made on the basis of details of a product given by the sales staff, do they form part of the contract? If any of the details turns out to be false, can I reject the products as a breach of contract?

Thank you.

Yes, and yes.

powerful_Rogue

Although it will turn into a 'he said/she said' situation.

Small claims court replies on the balance of probabilities if that's where this ends up going.

Eney

This document represents the final project agreement, regardless of any previous verbal or written information. Should you accept the quote you will receive exactly what is listed in the itemised section of this document. 

Thanks is the sentence above an unreasonable term or condition?

Aylesbury_Duck

Eney said:

This document represents the final project agreement, regardless of any previous verbal or written information. Should you accept the quote you will receive exactly what is listed in the itemised section of this document. 

Thanks is the sentence above an unreasonable term or condition?

Not really, because you can decline to sign it and therefore you're not bound by it.  If it doesn't include things you negotiated verbally and those are essential to you, don't proceed.

Alderbank

No it's not.

It's a good example of what a clear contract term should be.

However the devil is in the detail. You need to check the itemised section very closely, looking in particular for anything which was promised in discussions but is left unstated. If it's not listed in that section of the contract it doesn't exist.

For a consumer contract there can be some implied terms which can't be overruled by the contract but the safest approach is to work on the principle that you have agreed to Shylock's pound of flesh, you will get only what is in black and white, no more and no less.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Eney said:

Thanks is the sentence above an unreasonable term or condition?

I think it is.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations prohibit traders from carrying out misleading actions, to say one thing and then write another would be misleading IMO and if so would give the right to unwind the contract (subject to proving what was said). 

For services anything the trader says or writes is an implied term of the contract if

(a)it is taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, or

(b)it is taken into account by the consumer when making any decision about the service after entering into the contract.

changes would require express consent. 

Goods must be as described and again expressed consent is required for changes. 

I think it makes sense (although don't know legally) with regards to express consent to consider how obvious it is on a written the document that a change has occurred, something hidden away in terms wouldn't be acceptable IMO but blinding obvious perhaps by signing that is expressed consent. 

If you can't tell from the document whether it contains exactly what you agreed it would be pragmatic go back and request what was agreed be provided in writing in a manner which clarifies the agreement to your satisfaction  

Jumblebumble

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Eney said:

Thanks is the sentence above an unreasonable term or condition?

I think it is.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations prohibit traders from carrying out misleading actions, to say one thing and then write another would be misleading IMO and if so would give the right to unwind the contract (subject to proving what was said). 

For services anything the trader says or writes is an implied term of the contract if

(a)it is taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, or

(b)it is taken into account by the consumer when making any decision about the service after entering into the contract.

changes would require express consent. 

Goods must be as described and again expressed consent is required for changes. 

I think it makes sense (although don't know legally) with regards to express consent to consider how obvious it is on a written the document that a change has occurred, something hidden away in terms wouldn't be acceptable IMO but blinding obvious perhaps by signing that is expressed consent. 

If you can't tell from the document whether it contains exactly what you agreed it would be pragmatic go back and request what was agreed be provided in writing in a manner which clarifies the agreement to your satisfaction  

I am confused
How does the person drawing up the contract know what the customer believes that salesman has promised in order to ask for express consent to change the contract?
IMHO any sort of arguing that  previous verbal sales patter overrules a contract in writing will not impress a district judge.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jumblebumble said:

I am confused
How does the person drawing up the contract know what the customer believes that salesman has promised in order to ask for express consent to change the contract?

I don't know about believes? But from a factual point of view the person drawing up the contract confers with the salesperson.

"We'll redo your whole roof"
"Ummm"
We'll repoint the chimney for free" 
"Sold"

Now if that chimney repoint isn't on the paperwork it's correct the customer isn't entitled to receive it? 

PHK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Eney said:

Thanks is the sentence above an unreasonable term or condition?

I think it is.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations prohibit traders from carrying out misleading actions, to say one thing and then write another would be misleading IMO and if so would give the right to unwind the contract (subject to proving what was said). 

For services anything the trader says or writes is an implied term of the contract if

(a)it is taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, or

(b)it is taken into account by the consumer when making any decision about the service after entering into the contract.

changes would require express consent. 

Goods must be as described and again expressed consent is required for changes. 

I think it makes sense (although don't know legally) with regards to express consent to consider how obvious it is on a written the document that a change has occurred, something hidden away in terms wouldn't be acceptable IMO but blinding obvious perhaps by signing that is expressed consent. 

If you can't tell from the document whether it contains exactly what you agreed it would be pragmatic go back and request what was agreed be provided in writing in a manner which clarifies the agreement to your satisfaction  

I don't think this is right. Otherwise there could.never be any negotiation followed by a signed contract. 

I think it's exactly the sort of phrase you'd expect to see where a non-trivila contract is formed. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

PHK said:

I don't think this is right. Otherwise there could.never be any negotiation followed by a signed contract. 

I think it's exactly the sort of phrase you'd expect to see where a non-trivila contract is formed. 

Negotiation and changes are fine where expressly agreed by both sides, the issue is one party making changes that the other hasn't expressly agreed to.

Whilst it's pragmatic to read through everything and ensure it matches what you believe to be agreed, as with a lot of topics, consumer rights are there primarily to create balance between the trader and the consumer as the trader is the expert in their field whereas the consumer isn't and with this example the burden of the consumer having to check that the trader hasn't altered the terms is somewhat relieved by the legislation.