SCS no sofa delivery date

sheramber

The retailer could dispute the chargeback and the bank would return the money.

PHK

Although it does not change most of the advice. Can I point out that ScS give an estimated delivery date and then contact you nearer the time to arrange the delivery date and take any final payment. 

In this case the OPs complaint is that a delivery has not happened in a reasonable time. 

A_Geordie

[Deleted User] said:

Bizarrely, the contract isn't actually voided when a chargeback is claimed, or even when a chargeback is successful. Practically speaking it's all over, but legally the contract will still be in force. On the other hand, the seller could not reasonably force adherence to the contract at that point (by demanding payment again, or by delivering and then demanding payment), and reasonably neither could the buyer (by demanding the seller accept a second payment for the same item).

Yes, a successful chargeback doesn't terminate or void the contract and I also agree that the contract is still valid and in force, but the rest of what you have stated is both legally and factually incorrect.

[Deleted User]

A_Geordie said:

[Deleted User] said:

Bizarrely, the contract isn't actually voided when a chargeback is claimed, or even when a chargeback is successful. Practically speaking it's all over, but legally the contract will still be in force. On the other hand, the seller could not reasonably force adherence to the contract at that point (by demanding payment again, or by delivering and then demanding payment), and reasonably neither could the buyer (by demanding the seller accept a second payment for the same item).

Yes, a successful chargeback doesn't terminate or void the contract and I also agree that the contract is still valid and in force, but the rest of what you have stated is both legally and factually incorrect.

Pointless saying that unless you explain which part, and why.

A_Geordie

[Deleted User] said:

On the other hand, the seller could not reasonably force adherence to the contract at that point (by demanding payment again 

By your own words, you accept the contract is legally in force so the right to demand payment still exists. As we all know, chargebacks are not a statutory right nor does it displace or override any legally binding contract terms. So as long as the contract remains in force, both the buyer and seller should continue to perform their obligations. A successful chargeback simply means the buyer has not discharged its obligation to pay for the goods which the seller is rightfully entitled to demand payment for as agreed per the contract. The contract doesn't just sit in limbo where neither party can do nothing about it, as you seem to be suggesting.  

[Deleted User] said:

or by delivering and then demanding payment

In addition to anything the contract might say about delivery, section 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says: 

Trader to have right to supply the goods etc

(1) Every contract to supply goods, except one within subsection (4), is to be treated as including a term —

(a) in the case of a contract for the hire of goods, that at the beginning of the period of hire the trader must have the right to transfer possession of the goods by way of hire for that period,

(b) in any other case, that the trader must have the right to sell or transfer the goods at the time when ownership of the goods is to be transferred.

[Deleted User] said:

and reasonably neither could the buyer (by demanding the seller accept a second payment for the same item).

If the seller refused, they are likely to be in breach of the contractual commitments to supply the goods but also under section 28(2) of the CRA: 

Delivery of Goods

(2) Unless the trader and the consumer have agreed otherwise, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer.

Similarly, the refusal to perform by the seller would also amount to a repudiatory breach on their party enabling the buyer to terminate the contract, which I have explained in previous posts.

[Deleted User]

A_Geordie said:

[Deleted User] said:

On the other hand, the seller could not reasonably force adherence to the contract at that point (by demanding payment again 

By your own words, you accept the contract is legally in force so the right to demand payment still exists. As we all know, chargebacks are not a statutory right nor does it displace or override any legally binding contract terms. So as long as the contract remains in force, both the buyer and seller should continue to perform their obligations. A successful chargeback simply means the buyer has not discharged its obligation to pay for the goods which the seller is rightfully entitled to demand payment for as agreed per the contract. The contract doesn't just sit in limbo where neither party can do nothing about it, as you seem to be suggesting.  

[Deleted User] said:

or by delivering and then demanding payment

In addition to anything the contract might say about delivery, section 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says: 

Trader to have right to supply the goods etc

(1) Every contract to supply goods, except one within subsection (4), is to be treated as including a term —

(a) in the case of a contract for the hire of goods, that at the beginning of the period of hire the trader must have the right to transfer possession of the goods by way of hire for that period,

(b) in any other case, that the trader must have the right to sell or transfer the goods at the time when ownership of the goods is to be transferred.

[Deleted User] said:

and reasonably neither could the buyer (by demanding the seller accept a second payment for the same item).

If the seller refused, they are likely to be in breach of the contractual commitments to supply the goods but also under section 28(2) of the CRA: 

Delivery of Goods

(2) Unless the trader and the consumer have agreed otherwise, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the trader must deliver the goods to the consumer.

Similarly, the refusal to perform by the seller would also amount to a repudiatory breach on their party enabling the buyer to terminate the contract, which I have explained in previous posts.

That's why I added the word 'practically'. Enforcement of the contract just wouldn't happen. After a successful chargeback the buyer would not be compelled to pay again, and nor would the seller be compelled to accept such a payment and make good. The purpose of contract law is not to force two parties on equal footing into doing business when one of them does not wish to.

But that's moot, because to get there in the first place one or both of the parties would need to be stark staring mad.

What seller would, after being forced to refund via chargeback, not only want to do business again with the buyer, but be so desperate to do so that they would be willing to take them to court to get it?

The notion is similarly ridiculous on the buyer's side. The buyer spends weeks trying to get delivery, then goes through the chargeback procedure and when they finally receive the money - pay it right back to the seller and demand they deliver the same item that they failed to deliver previously.

In practical terms, the contract is finished. And whilst you can argue to the letter of the law, I think people here are more concerned with what actually happens in the real world.

A_Geordie

It's rather naive to suggest that the seller not enforcing a contract following a successful chargeback from the buyer would in both real and practical terms be the end of the road and nothing else would come of it. That really depends on a number of factors such as the seller's appetite to sue as well as the contract value.

Ebay is a classic example where I have known buyers to be sued following a chargeback and some companies in the same manner if there is reason to believe the buyer had no right to receive a refund or failed to terminate the contract. Finance companies offering hire purchase agreements will have no hesitation in suing you if you initiate a chargeback but fail to terminate the contract since the expectation is that you are obligated to pay unless and until the contract has been terminated, with potentially severe consequences. So in the real world, it can and does happen. 

At the end of the day, this is a consumer rights forum and those who seek help should do so with their eyes open in order to make a fully informed decision, even if it means some of us post an opposing view by looking at the letter of the law, especially since you cannot guarantee the outcome for the OP. 

born_again

A_Geordie said:

Maybe I am missing the point you're trying to make.

As far as I can see, nothing within the scheme rules for chargebacks says that a consumer can only rely on non-receipt of goods if the contract hasn't been terminated. That would not only be illogical but also it would defeat the very object of the consumer being able to raise a chargeback based on non-receipt of goods for the reasons I gave earlier.

We will agree to disagree 👍

All I can go by is we are told that if a customer cancels with the retailer, then Visa/Mastercard say that there is no right to a non receipt chargeback & a retailer can use that to reject.

born_again

sheramber said:

The retailer could dispute the chargeback and the bank would return the money.

Technically in this case not. As they have not delivered by the due date. Which is what the chargeback is based on.
Which is why the risk of legal recourse is much higher.

sheramber

born_again said:

sheramber said:

The retailer could dispute the chargeback and the bank would return the money.

Technically in this case not. As they have not delivered by the due date. Which is what the chargeback is based on.
Which is why the risk of legal recourse is much higher.

If it is an estimated date of delivery then that is not a fixed due date.

Previous threads have advised that the buyer advised the retailer that delivery must be by  a specific date. If that doesn’t happen then the contract is void   and the retailer should refund. 

If they do not refund then that is a different matter.