LETTER BEFORE ACTION Help

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

A_Geordie said:

Intention to create legal relations differs from mistake in that it requires an intention that you intend to be bound by the terms that were discussed and agreed in order to form that contract. If that intention is lacking, there cannot be a contract. So yes, your point around the mix up of labels arguably creates the lack of intention. 

Thanks again for clarifying.

This appears to be your best bet OP, all you can really say is a contract wasn't formed as the unique situation meant there was no intention and you require your phone back or it's value.

As noted the value of a broken phone isn't necessarily £500 (although it was a broken phone under warranty that would have been fixed for free (possibly!), I've no idea how you'd put a value on the phone). 

How would they know it's under warranty? Might not even be transferable to a 3rd party. 
As far as they are aware it is a broken phone & worth exactly  what they value a broken phone as.

cmthephoenix

How would they know it's under warranty? Might not even be transferable to a 3rd party. 
As far as they are aware it is a broken phone & worth exactly  what they value a broken phone as.

Which brings an interesting question. OP, presumably the phone you got from backmarket was a refurbished phone and so any warranty it had was the refurbishers warranty only - what was the name of the company that you got the samsung from and presumably it was a different name and and address of the company you sent the iPhone to.

visidigi

I'm really confused on this whole subject of saying there isn't a contract in place when the envelope with a transactional reference was used (no matter what was in it).

I mean otherwise I could just send anything to anyone and when it turns up I hold the recipient responsible for sending it back because it 'was a mistake' - and then claim from them when they don't seems a bit..unlikely.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

visidigi said:

I'm really confused on this whole subject of saying there isn't a contract in place when the envelope with a transactional reference was used (no matter what was in it).

I mean otherwise I could just send anything to anyone and when it turns up I hold the recipient responsible for sending it back because it 'was a mistake' - and then claim from them when they don't seems a bit..unlikely.

I would suggest OP is responsible for collecting it really.

I don't know, in the PlayStation example I gave above you can't just keep the console, retailer would be entitled to it back, same with a situation where someone is an involuntarily bailee, a thankless position with an obligation to allow collection, take care of the goods or sell and account for the proceeds. 

Given Black Market's terms indicate there is a built in process for the customer sending the wrong thing it does beg the question why the trade in wasn't rejected, probably because it's easier for Samsung to keep it and offer £25.

A Galaxy is a very different phone to an iPhone, is it not reasonable to assume something has gone awry? 

visidigi said:

I could just send anything to anyone 

I would assume the legislation surrounding unsolicited goods would cover this? Not sure TBH

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

visidigi said:

I'm really confused on this whole subject of saying there isn't a contract in place when the envelope with a transactional reference was used (no matter what was in it).

I mean otherwise I could just send anything to anyone and when it turns up I hold the recipient responsible for sending it back because it 'was a mistake' - and then claim from them when they don't seems a bit..unlikely.

I would suggest OP is responsible for collecting it really.

I don't know, in the PlayStation example I gave above you can't just keep the console, retailer would be entitled to it back, same with a situation where someone is an involuntarily bailee, a thankless position with an obligation to allow collection, take care of the goods or sell and account for the proceeds. 

Given Black Market's terms indicate there is a built in process for the customer sending the wrong thing it does beg the question why the trade in wasn't rejected, probably because it's easier for Samsung to keep it and offer £25.

A Galaxy is a very different phone to an iPhone, is it not reasonable to assume something has gone awry? 

visidigi said:

I could just send anything to anyone 

I would assume the legislation surrounding unsolicited goods would cover this? Not sure TBH

My thought is that the company has to have such a process in place because a lot of people give incorrect information about which phone they want to trade in.  Either intentionally (e.g. get a quote for an iphone13, send in an iphone11), or accidentally (they don't remember what model they have, or they just can't be bothered to search the list).  If they automatically rejected any phones that were different they'd lose money on postage, so they've adopted a position of "We'll try work with whatever you send us".   In such cases, they *do* get back to the sender to inform them of the difference - which should cover most cases where someone accidentally sends the wrong phone.