SCS refusing to cancel order but didn't say at point of sale.

born_again

Conniebygaslight said:

The way the sales guy did it was extremely clever, her read out things like, we have good access for delivery, we agree for them to contact us by emails and phone, all the rather benign points. He didn't mention terms and conditions and said that we had 5 days to make any amendments to the order.

A amendment is not a cancelation though, is it?

TBH. Have you ever bought anything in store & been told that you have the right to cancel?

Aylesbury_Duck

born_again said:

Conniebygaslight said:

The way the sales guy did it was extremely clever, her read out things like, we have good access for delivery, we agree for them to contact us by emails and phone, all the rather benign points. He didn't mention terms and conditions and said that we had 5 days to make any amendments to the order.

A amendment is not a cancelation though, is it?

TBH. Have you ever bought anything in store & been told that you have the right to cancel?

Playing devil's advocate, I suppose it depends on the wording.  If it says "any amendment", then one could argue that reducing the order quantities to zero meets that descriptor.  Or maybe OP could remove the two sofas and retain the cheapest item, thereby limiting their liability.  If the possible amendments are actually listed, then that argument falls away.

born_again

Aylesbury_Duck said:

born_again said:

Conniebygaslight said:

The way the sales guy did it was extremely clever, her read out things like, we have good access for delivery, we agree for them to contact us by emails and phone, all the rather benign points. He didn't mention terms and conditions and said that we had 5 days to make any amendments to the order.

A amendment is not a cancelation though, is it?

TBH. Have you ever bought anything in store & been told that you have the right to cancel?

Playing devil's advocate, I suppose it depends on the wording.  If it says "any amendment", then one could argue that reducing the order quantities to zero meets that descriptor.  Or maybe OP could remove the two sofas and retain the cheapest item, thereby limiting their liability.  If the possible amendments are actually listed, then that argument falls away.

Nothing like a good Advocated Devil  🤣


T/C make no mention of in store purchases
 
https://www.scs.co.uk/retail-terms-conditions.html

In the FAQ there is

https://www.scs.co.uk/help/before-you-buy/faqs/order-faqs.html

Can I cancel my order

Where you have placed your order on our website or via phone, your order will be manufactured to your exact specification unless you have bought a stock item. As these products are bespoke and made to order the contract is not cancellable. You have the right to amend an upholstery order within 5 days from the order confirmation date without giving any reason. Please view our Terms and Conditions for more information or contact our Customer Services team here.

If you ordered your product in store, please speak with them directly about your rights to cancel or amend your order.

Which the last part does separate out "Amend" & "Cancel" 🤷‍♀️

A_Geordie

I'm going to go against the majority of posters here and argue that the OP may have a reasonable argument that they had a right to cancel. 

It's very easy to say the OP doesn't have a right to cancel but the OP is saying that they were not presented with any terms and conditions to read or accept as part of the sales process, other than they have a right to amend the order within 5 days. Seems to me this is a classic case of attempting to introduce terms after the fact and it is well established in law that there is a need for the seller to bring the terms to the attention of the buyer and make them aware. Otherwise the buyer will not be bound by terms introduced at a later date.

If the SCS representative simply presented a signature box based on the discussion without making the OP aware of the additional terms other than what was discussed, then the terms sent to the OP by email afterwards would not form part of the agreed contract. This position seems to be supported by the fact the OP is saying that the email containing the T&Cs that they must be read before signing an order. Alternatively the sales rep could have selected something as part of the order process suggesting the OP has read and accepted the terms without their knowledge, but in either case, the terms were not brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

Therefore, it's fair for the OP to exercise a right to cancel without penalty and if the OP was with other people at the time who can verify the facts at the time then there's a good chance the OP could have a viable claim if taken to court. The onus would be on SCS to prove that the terms were brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

OP it sounds like SCS are not playing ball, so your only option may be to start legal proceedings in order to recover your deposit and if there were other witnesses with you at the time to vouch for you, then you may be in a stronger position, especially since the sales rep will argue the opposite. However, if you do not wish to go down that route, I'm afraid you may be out of luck other than to accept the order.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

Therefore, it's fair for the OP to exercise a right to cancel without penalty and if the OP was with other people at the time who can verify the facts at the time then there's a good chance the OP could have a viable claim if taken to court. The onus would be on SCS to prove that the terms were brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

Out of interest, I was under the impression that the person making the claim had to prove their case? Or do you mean some kind of witness statement is that proof and then SCS have to show otherwise?

I do agree consumers should have the opportunity to view and understand terms before being bound by them. 

I also agree no cancellation rights in store but good point about what an amendment is, OP can you post the terms from email regarding amendments? 

CRA says

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69

If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

SCS probably have it written well but worth looking and maybe easier than arguing he said, she said. 

Other than that it's the ordinary position of costs or loss of profit. 

Aylesbury_Duck

A_Geordie said:

I'm going to go against the majority of posters here and argue that the OP may have a reasonable argument that they had a right to cancel. 

It's very easy to say the OP doesn't have a right to cancel but the OP is saying that they were not presented with any terms and conditions to read or accept as part of the sales process, other than they have a right to amend the order within 5 days. Seems to me this is a classic case of attempting to introduce terms after the fact and it is well established in law that there is a need for the seller to bring the terms to the attention of the buyer and make them aware. Otherwise the buyer will not be bound by terms introduced at a later date.

If the SCS representative simply presented a signature box based on the discussion without making the OP aware of the additional terms other than what was discussed, then the terms sent to the OP by email afterwards would not form part of the agreed contract. This position seems to be supported by the fact the OP is saying that the email containing the T&Cs that they must be read before signing an order. Alternatively the sales rep could have selected something as part of the order process suggesting the OP has read and accepted the terms without their knowledge, but in either case, the terms were not brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

Therefore, it's fair for the OP to exercise a right to cancel without penalty and if the OP was with other people at the time who can verify the facts at the time then there's a good chance the OP could have a viable claim if taken to court. The onus would be on SCS to prove that the terms were brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

OP it sounds like SCS are not playing ball, so your only option may be to start legal proceedings in order to recover your deposit and if there were other witnesses with you at the time to vouch for you, then you may be in a stronger position, especially since the sales rep will argue the opposite. However, if you do not wish to go down that route, I'm afraid you may be out of luck other than to accept the order.

Thanks.  That's the sort of technical response I'd hoped someone would provide.

However...re. the bolded parts, has an additional, relevant term been added after the fact?  OP didn't have a statutory right to cancel the whole order for a full refund at the point of sale, and that appears to be unchanged by the terms presented afterwards.  In other words, those retrospective terms make no difference to the position OP is in with regard to their desire to cancel.  Might OP be better off finding something in those additional terms that is a problem for them, and cancel the contract on those grounds instead?

elsien

A_Geordie said:

I'm going to go against the majority of posters here and argue that the OP may have a reasonable argument that they had a right to cancel. 

It's very easy to say the OP doesn't have a right to cancel but the OP is saying that they were not presented with any terms and conditions to read or accept as part of the sales process, other than they have a right to amend the order within 5 days. Seems to me this is a classic case of attempting to introduce terms after the fact and it is well established in law that there is a need for the seller to bring the terms to the attention of the buyer and make them aware. Otherwise the buyer will not be bound by terms introduced at a later date.

If the SCS representative simply presented a signature box based on the discussion without making the OP aware of the additional terms other than what was discussed, then the terms sent to the OP by email afterwards would not form part of the agreed contract. This position seems to be supported by the fact the OP is saying that the email containing the T&Cs that they must be read before signing an order. Alternatively the sales rep could have selected something as part of the order process suggesting the OP has read and accepted the terms without their knowledge, but in either case, the terms were not brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

Therefore, it's fair for the OP to exercise a right to cancel without penalty and if the OP was with other people at the time who can verify the facts at the time then there's a good chance the OP could have a viable claim if taken to court. The onus would be on SCS to prove that the terms were brought to the OP's attention at point of sale. 

OP it sounds like SCS are not playing ball, so your only option may be to start legal proceedings in order to recover your deposit and if there were other witnesses with you at the time to vouch for you, then you may be in a stronger position, especially since the sales rep will argue the opposite. However, if you do not wish to go down that route, I'm afraid you may be out of luck other than to accept the order.

Except the terms of any instore purchase are that there are no automatic cancellation rights, under the current legislation? 

sonearandyetsofa

A_Geordie said:

...
It's very easy to say the OP doesn't have a right to cancel but the OP is saying that they were not presented with any terms and conditions to read or accept as part of the sales process, other than they have a right to amend the order within 5 days. Seems to me this is a classic case of attempting to introduce terms after the fact and it is well established in law that there is a need for the seller to bring the terms to the attention of the buyer and make them aware. Otherwise the buyer will not be bound by terms introduced at a later date.

The OP still only has the right to amend (not cancel) the order within the first five days. Without being told anything else, when you purchase from a physical store where you had the opportunity to examine the goods, you don't have the automatic right to change your mind and cancel the order. Basically the assumption is that you cannot cancel, and the store would need to tell you that you can cancel an order in order to grant you that right. If they'd said nothing at all, OP wouldn't even have the right to amend it - it's only because they were told they could amend it that they have the ability to do so.

Of course, "amend" could probably include adjusting it to be for something cheaper, perhaps just an armchair or something similar rather than an entire suite. So definitely worthwhile looking into that.

There's no requirement in law for the seller to inform the buyer of terms when purchasing in a physical shop, unless those terms differ from the usual.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

elsien said:

Except the terms of any instore purchase are that there are no automatic cancellation rights, under the current legislation? 

I think the other poster is saying is, in the absence of anything else being said, "you have 5 days to amend" means "amend" is undefined and so includes cancel, with whatever was written not applying because OP didn't have the chance to become acquainted with it before forming the contract. 

Okell

I'm inclined to agree with Aylesbury_Duck, Elsien and sonearyetsofa that the email SFS subsequently sent to the OP is not attempting to introduce new terms into the contract.  It's simply pointing out to (or reminding) the OP that he doesn't have a right that he never had in the first place.

Any other view would be taking the position that a consumer had a right to cancel (or amend) an instore purchase unless they had been explicitly told that they couldn't.  I don't think that could be right.

Regarding the other question as to whether the broad term "to amend" includes the narrower term "to cancel", I think I'd say no, it doesn't

I'd also say it's meaning was unambiguous, but perhaps an argument could be made that it's meaning isn't clear and should be interpreted in favour of the consumer.  But to me that would be attributing to words meanings that they don't have.

It would help if the OP could give the exact wording of the relevant terms

[Edit:  Having said all that I disapprove of the practice of making consumers "sign" agreements on laptops etc.  Persoanlly I wouldn't sign anything other than a paper document, or I would only "sign" digitally if I'd read paper T&Cs and the salesman had signed those as the T&Cs applying to my purchase]