Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Supplier lets down retailer

  • 10-03-2010 7:15pm
    #1
    wexhurdler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭


    Hey,

    Just doing a question as part of a law assignment and wondering if anybody can give some insight into something I can't find any info on??

    A retailer offers to sell goods to a customer and the customer agrees, and a contract is formed. The supplier of the retailer (3rd party) lets the retailer down.

    Is the retailer still obliged to fulfill the contract to the customer or can the supplier's failure excuse the contract.

    If anybody knows any related cases or indeed if the retailer would be excused because of a failure on the supplier's behalf I'd greatly appreciate it.

    Thanks


Comments

  • #2
    SATSUMA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭SATSUMA


    wexhurdler wrote: »
    Hey,

    Just doing a question as part of a law assignment and wondering if anybody can give some insight into something I can't find any info on??

    A retailer offers to sell goods to a customer and the customer agrees, and a contract is formed. The supplier of the retailer (3rd party) lets the retailer down.

    Is the retailer still obliged to fulfill the contract to the customer or can the supplier's failure excuse the contract.

    If anybody knows any related cases or indeed if the retailer would be excused because of a failure on the supplier's behalf I'd greatly appreciate it.

    Thanks
    Hi
    "A retailer offers to sell goods to a customer"-this is probably an invitation to treat. "The customer agrees"-the customer makes the offer by offering consideration ie-money. Once excepted by the retailer then the contract is formed. "the supplier lets the retailer down"-this is the contract between the supplier and the retailer not the retailer and the customer.


  • #3
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭TheInquisitor


    Yes but the contract only be made when money exchanges hands? For instance an offer on a window may entice a customer in who wants the offer however what if the item is not in stock etc. Unless money exchanges hands or contracts or signed there is legal contract in these circumstances


  • #4
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    wexhurdler wrote: »

    A retailer offers to sell goods to a customer and the customer agrees, and a contract is formed.

    Thanks
    An offer to sell and an agreement to purchase is not a contract. It's an offer and an agreement.


  • #5
    SATSUMA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭SATSUMA


    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Yes but the contract only be made when money exchanges hands? For instance an offer on a window may entice a customer in who wants the offer however what if the item is not in stock etc. Unless money exchanges hands or contracts or signed there is legal contract in these circumstances


    Yes the contract is made when money exhanges hands-this is legally referred to as consideration. If the item is not in stock then the customer wont be paying for it at the till so no contract is formed. I'm trying to keep it simple here.


  • #6
    SATSUMA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭SATSUMA


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    An offer to sell and an agreement to purchase is not a contract. It's an offer and an agreement.


    An offer to sell is not legally an offer. It's an invitation to treat. Meaning it is the customer who makes the offer. An agreement is formed once there is consideration.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Please excuse me if I get something wrong here, I am only learning…
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    Yes but the contract only be made when money exchanges hands?
    Money does nto need to change hands for a contract to be formed. In fact, there does not even need to be a signed contract for a party to be held to obligations.
    TheInquisitor wrote: »
    For instance an offer on a window may entice a customer in who wants the offer however what if the item is not in stock etc. Unless money exchanges hands or contracts or signed there is legal contract in these circumstances
    Shop displays are generally considered to be invitations to treat and not offers. But when someone agrees to sell you something by making an offer, and you accept that offer as it is made then a contract is formed.
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    An offer to sell and an agreement to purchase is not a contract. It's an offer and an agreement.
    No, it is an offer and acceptance, a contract is formed.
    SATSUMA wrote: »
    An offer to sell is not legally an offer. It's an invitation to treat. Meaning it is the customer who makes the offer. An agreement is formed once there is consideration.
    This is not true. For something to be an offer all that should need to be done for a contract to be formed is for the offeree to say “I accept.” If the statement made by the offeror does not contain all the information that would allow the offeree to simply say I accept then it is likely an invitation to treat and not an offer.
    SATSUMA wrote: »
    Yes the contract is made when money exhanges hands-this is legally referred to as consideration.
    Not true. Consideration is an action, promise of an action, forbearance or promise of forbearance. It has nothing to do with money changing hands.
    SATSUMA wrote: »
    If the item is not in stock then the customer wont be paying for it at the till so no contract is formed. I'm trying to keep it simple here.
    Possibly too simple…

    MrP


  • #8
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    An offer to sell and an agreement to purchase is not a contract. It's an offer and an agreement.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    No, it is an offer and acceptance, a contract is formed.


    MrP

    No matter how many times you say it, and offer and an acceptance is not a contract, in this case where someone agrees to buy something at some time in the future from a retailer.

    I know there are people who believe that, if you say something ten times, then it becomes true. I’m afraid that simply repeating what you said earlier is not an argument.


  • #9
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    No matter how many times you say it, and offer and an acceptance is not a contract, in this case where someone agrees to buy something at some time in the future from a retailer.

    I know there are people who believe that, if you say something ten times, then it becomes true. I’m afraid that simply repeating what you said earlier is not an argument.
    So, if not after offer and acceptance, at what point is there a binding agreement or contract?

    MrP


  • #10
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Scenario 1: I walk into a shop and ask for 10 copies of Windows XP, because I need XP and not any other version as the specialist software I want to use is only compatible / certified with XP. The retailer doesn't have them in stock, but promises to get them. I pay the retailer cash and get a receipt for 10 copies of Windows XP. The retailer can't obtain Windows XP as it is no longer made. I sue the retailer and am awarded damages, which are likely to be mitigated as the product is no longer available (judge to decide on damages).

    Scenario 2: I walk into an off-licence and ask for 10 cases of wine (including champagne) to be delivered for a celebratory return of the Irish sports team at the local club house. The retailer doesn't have them all in stock, but promises to get them. I pay the retailer cash and get a receipt listing the wines ordered. The retailer can't get any of the wine and as it is now 10pm, it can't be bought anywhere. I sue the retailer and am awarded damages, which are exacerbated by virtue of the embarrassment involved (judge to decide on damages).

    Scenario 3: I walk into a head shop and ask for 10kg of cocaine substitute. The retailer supplies me with 2kg and says he'll have the rest tomorrow. Unbeknownst to us, the cocaine substitute has already been banned and the ban comes into effect at midnight. I sue the retailer and am merely refunded my money for the amount not supplied.

    Scenario 4: I go to a sports travel agents and the agent agrees to book 10 sets of first class flights, 5-star accommodation and "the best seats" for the 2010 Summer Olympics. In reality there are no 2010 Summer Olympics. I sue the travel agents and am merely refunded my money as the contract is void due to lack of certainty.

    Question: what if the product is generic, e.g. bottled water (no brand requirement)?


  • #11
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    Victor wrote: »
    Scenario 1: I walk into a shop and ask for 10 copies of Windows XP, because I need XP and not any other version as the specialist software I want to use is only compatible / certified with XP. The retailer doesn't have them in stock, but promises to get them. I pay the retailer cash and get a receipt for 10 copies of Windows XP. The retailer can't obtain Windows XP as it is no longer made. I sue the retailer and am awarded damages, which are likely to be mitigated as the product is no longer available (judge to decide on damages).

    It's unlikely you'd be awarded "damages" and would be more likely to be given your money back.

    If the retailer had already offered you your money back, or had already given it back to you, you might find yourself being ordered by a court to pay the retailers expenses, which might be a costly lesson for you.

    In the example the OP gave, my understanding is the customer did not pay the retailer in advance for the goods, in any case.
    Victor wrote: »

    Scenario 2: I walk into an off-licence and ask for 10 cases of wine (including champagne) to be delivered for a celebratory return of the Irish sports team at the local club house. The retailer doesn't have them all in stock, but promises to get them. I pay the retailer cash and get a receipt listing the wines ordered. The retailer can't get any of the wine and as it is now 10pm, it can't be bought anywhere. I sue the retailer and am awarded damages, which are exacerbated by virtue of the embarrassment involved (judge to decide on damages).

    Again, your assumption is incorrect. Your "contract" is a verbal contract and not a written contract with the retailer, and does not stipulate what is to happen in the event of him being unable to secure supplies.

    For you to ask a court to assume that it was implied in your contract that if the retailer was not able to secure supplies than the retailer had agreed, as part of the contract, to compensate you an unspecified amount over and above the value of the items not supplied, is as impossible to prove as it is that a court would agree you have, in fact, suffered any damage.
    Victor wrote: »

    Scenario 3: I walk into a head shop and ask for 10kg of cocaine substitute. The retailer supplies me with 2kg and says he'll have the rest tomorrow. Unbeknownst to us, the cocaine substitute has already been banned and the ban comes into effect at midnight. I sue the retailer and am merely refunded my money for the amount not supplied.

    The problem is likely to be that most retailers would offer you back your money already. having said that, to pay a head shop owner for 1kg of cocaine substitute in advance seems to be quite a foolish thing to do in any case.
    Victor wrote: »
    Scenario 4: I go to a sports travel agents and the agent agrees to book 10 sets of first class flights, 5-star accommodation and "the best seats" for the 2010 Summer Olympics. In reality there are no 2010 Summer Olympics. I sue the travel agents and am merely refunded my money as the contract is void due to lack of certainty.

    Again, you appear to have been quite foolish to have paid for something which does not exist, and in practice its unlikely the retailer would not offer you your money back and wait to be sued.

    I'm not sure what your 4 scenarios are meant to prove in the context of this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    First of all, as you seem to have missed it:
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    No matter how many times you say it, and offer and an acceptance is not a contract, in this case where someone agrees to buy something at some time in the future from a retailer.

    I know there are people who believe that, if you say something ten times, then it becomes true. I’m afraid that simply repeating what you said earlier is not an argument.
    So, if not after offer and acceptance, at what point is there a binding agreement or contract?

    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    It's unlikely you'd be awarded "damages" and would be more likely to be given your money back.

    If the retailer had already offered you your money back, or had already given it back to you, you might find yourself being ordered by a court to pay the retailers expenses, which might be a costly lesson for you.

    In the example the OP gave, my understanding is the customer did not pay the retailer in advance for the goods, in any case.
    That would depend entirely on the fact of the case. If, for example you had a contract to supply a number of systems to a specific configuration and the promise supply of the software by the retailer was key to you being able to deliver that contract, assuming the retailer was aware of this, it is conceivable he could be held liable for the money you expected to make form the contract.


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    Again, your assumption is incorrect. Your "contract" is a verbal contract and not a written contract with the retailer, and does not stipulate what is to happen in the event of him being unable to secure supplies.
    What does verbal have to do with it?
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    For you to ask a court to assume that it was implied in your contract that if the retailer was not able to secure supplies than the retailer had agreed, as part of the contract, to compensate you an unspecified amount over and above the value of the items not supplied, is as impossible to prove as it is that a court would agree you have, in fact, suffered any damage.
    That is what the courts do. It is up to you to prove what you claim.
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    The problem is likely to be that most retailers would offer you back your money already. having said that, to pay a head shop owner for 1kg of cocaine substitute in advance seems to be quite a foolish thing to do in any case.
    The courts do not decide if the bargain is good or not, only if there is an obligation.
    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    Again, you appear to have been quite foolish to have paid for something which does not exist, and in practice its unlikely the retailer would not offer you your money back and wait to be sued.

    I'm not sure what your 4 scenarios are meant to prove in the context of this thread.
    People pay for things that don’t yet exist all the time. In this example it would probably depend on the behaviour of the travel agent and whether or not there was any misrepresentation.

    Can I ask what you background is?

    You are giving the impression that you don’t understand the purpose of these theoretical problem questions. It does not really mater if a person in the real world would actually sue if the scenario in the question came up. All that matters is the law. I can enter into an agreement with a shopkeeper to buy a pen for 50cents. If I subsequently decide to not buy it the shopkeeper may be to sue me, but in real life he is unlikly to. In a problem question that is not relevant, all that is relevant is does he have any grounds to sue me?

    As I mentioned in my first post, I am only learning, but a lot of what you are saying simply does not seem correct. I appreciate that I am studying in the UK, but I don’t think the differences are that fundamental.

    MrP


  • #13
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    No matter how many times you say it, and offer and an acceptance is not a contract, in this case where someone agrees to buy something at some time in the future from a retailer.

    I know there are people who believe that, if you say something ten times, then it becomes true. I’m afraid that simply repeating what you said earlier is not an argument.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    So, if not after offer and acceptance, at what point is there a binding agreement or contract?

    MrP
    Any chance of clarification?

    MrP


Advertisement