Consumer rights general guidance

ODriscoll

Briefly.

Ordered item from amazon uk, the seller was a retailer.
Item arrived on time but not as expected or as order.
The item that arrived is just a single part of the item purchased, a single part of the complete item I thought I was buying.


The order confirmed by the retailer in a email and on amazon, clearly states and shows the image of the full item and links to a description of the complete item which also clearly states that the delivery box should have been 3 of the item received plus a frame.

Complication
The seller is a sort of clearing house, they had the item for sale on a big discount (they actually stated the discount, foolishly I did not take a screenshot of that) to RRP.

While they are not con merchants (they have a decent reputation as a retailer), My gut feeling (based on many years of past retail sales experience) is they never did their homework properly, and as a consequence had the item wrongly described or priced or both.
Basically no one looked in the box their end, to see what they were actually selling.
and I suspect they will now try and just pass me off with a refund.


Now while I am 100% certain I can get a refund! that is not what I want, not why I spent my time ordering the goods!

I obviously want the item as ordered at the price stated and agreed and paid for.


I am trying to be pre informed for the conversation with the retailer tomorrow.

1. If they say they do not have any more in stock! Can I insist that they complete the contract by supplying the missing parts and in reasonable time.

2. Take them to small claims court for completion of order and compensation.


Any experience or knowledge assistance appreciated

whippet

Simple answer is that once they offer you a refund; that is all you can reasonably expect.

You can not insist that they fulfil the original order, you can not seek compensation.

By you own admission you can reasonably see why the item was a lot cheaper than it should have been - in effect you can not insist on performance of an unreasonable part of a contract.

The small claims court will not award compensation.

When you speak to them make sure they pay for the return of the item.

ODriscoll

whippet wrote: »

By you own admission you can reasonably see why the item was a lot cheaper than it should have been - in effect you can not insist on performance of an unreasonable part of a contract.

I am Hoping you are not correct about a retailers obligations to a contact.

One point however,
Not by my admission at all, things do sell cheaper than retail all the time the world over.

Maybe you missed this point.
The retailer clearly stated the saving made against RRP.
They quoted the RRP and showed the overall saving, both % and £.

Therefore, my asking for the goods as paid for, as described in their own email confirmation is not remotely my insisting on a unreasonable part of a contract, is it!

Hopefully you are wrong about the offer of refund voids any other obligation on a contract, but maybe you are right.

whippet

ODriscoll wrote: »

Hopefully you are wrong about the offer of refund voids any other obligation on a contract, but maybe you are right.

Generally under consumer legislation; when goods are faulty or not as described the retailer can offer one of three:

- Repair
- Replacement
- Refund

Of the three options two are not reasonably possible by the retailer (repair - there is nothing to be repaired / replacement - there isn't available replacement stock)

You as a consumer can not insist on either of the three.

I am confident that the only option the retailer will offer is a refund.

The consumer can choose to accept the offer made by the retailer, the consumer can also choose to reject the offer of remediation; however, should you refuse the offer made your only route is via the small claims court.

The court will rule based on the retailer attempting a reasonable resolution to the problem. In your case I am quite sure that a court would rule that the offer of a full refund is reasonable by the retailer and as such suggest that you accept the offer and leave you with no other recourse.

Peregrinus

I don't think the offer of a refund is reasonable; there is a contract to sell you the complete item at a signficant discount over the price you would pay elsewhere; if you get a refund and then go and buy the item elsewhere you will have to pay much more, and you will be considerably worse off than if the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms.

The general rule in breach-of-contract cases is that you're entitled to be put in the position you would be in if the contract had been performed. The seller should either supply the complete item for the contracted price (if necessary buying one himself for the purpose) or pay you damages sufficient to cover the cost of buying the item elsewhere, and I think that's what a court would order.

whippet

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the offer of a refund is reasonable; there is a contract to sell you the complete item at a signficant discount over the price you would pay elsewhere; if you get a refund and then go and buy the item elsewhere you will have to pay much more, and you will be considerably worse off than if the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms.

The general rule in breach-of-contract cases is that you're entitled to be put in the position you would be in if the contract had been performed. The seller should either supply the complete item for the contracted price (if necessary buying one himself for the purpose) or pay you damages sufficient to cover the cost of buying the item elsewhere, and I think that's what a court would order.

you can't insist on performance of a contract where by it would be burdensome or expensive. The OP accepts and understands how the retailer made the mistake; based on what the OP has said in my opinion there isn't grounds for the retailer to be forced to purchase a replacement product at a higher price and sell it to the OP at a loss.

In this case the contract is null and void and the retailer should collect the goods and refund the OP in full.

Any mention of compensation is nonsense as the retailer has no responsibility to put the OP back to a position that would be considered better than where he was before the transaction.

Peregrinus

whippet wrote: »

you can't insist on performance of a contract where by it would be burdensome or expensive. The OP accepts and understands how the retailer made the mistake; based on what the OP has said in my opinion there isn't grounds for the retailer to be forced to purchase a replacement product at a higher price and sell it to the OP at a loss.

In circumstances where you can’t get an order for specific performance, you’re entitled instead to an award of damages and the measure of the award, as always, is the amount required to put you in the position you would be in if the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms.

In other words, “expensive” in this context doesn’t mean “would be loss-making for the seller”. Sellers frequently contract to sell things below cost; sometimes this is a loss leader, sometimes (as probably here) this is due to the seller’s negligence in pricing the item. But in neither case does this mean the seller is excused from his usual liabilities under the contract he has formed. If it would cost the seller more to perform the contract than to pay damages, and/or performance of the contract is impossible, then no order for specific performance will be made, but an award of damages will be made.

whippet wrote: »

In this case the contract is null and void and the retailer should collect the goods and refund the OP in full.

I don’t see any argument for saying that the contract is null and void.

whippet wrote: »

Any mention of compensation is nonsense as the retailer has no responsibility to put the OP back to a position that would be considered better than where he was before the transaction.

Yes, he does. In general, we only enter into contracts if we expect we will be better off as a result – I agree to purchase a pencil from you for 50 cents because the pencil is more use to me than the 50 cents. There’s no general principle that an award of damages for breach of contract can’t make you better off than you were before you entered into the contract. As already stated, the award should put you in the position you would be in if the contract had been performed, and therefore will usually leave you better off than you were before you entered into the contract.

Bepolite

ODriscoll wrote: »

Briefly.

While they are not con merchants (they have a decent reputation as a retailer), My gut feeling (based on many years of past retail sales experience) is they never did their homework properly, and as a consequence had the item wrongly described or priced or both.
Basically no one looked in the box their end, to see what they were actually selling.
and I suspect they will now try and just pass me off with a refund.

If someone would be kind enough to remind me of the law on mistake I'd be much obliged. I'm still trying to track down who I lent my KI manual too!

ODriscoll

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the offer of a refund is reasonable; there is a contract to sell you the complete item at a signficant discount over the price you would pay elsewhere; if you get a refund and then go and buy the item elsewhere you will have to pay much more, and you will be considerably worse off than if the contract had been performed in accordance with its terms.

That is what I have just been told by someone else, hope so.

234

whippet wrote: »

you can't insist on performance of a contract where by it would be burdensome or expensive. The OP accepts and understands how the retailer made the mistake; based on what the OP has said in my opinion there isn't grounds for the retailer to be forced to purchase a replacement product at a higher price and sell it to the OP at a loss.

In this case the contract is null and void and the retailer should collect the goods and refund the OP in full.

Any mention of compensation is nonsense as the retailer has no responsibility to put the OP back to a position that would be considered better than where he was before the transaction.

Literally all of this is wrong.

1. That isn't the test for specific performance. And yes, the retailer in certain circumstances can be forced to fork out to put the OP in the position he would have been in.

2. The contract isn't void at all. This is a breach, not something that renders the contract void, or even voidable.

3. Actually, in cases of breach the damages are there to put the OP in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed correctly. If he contracted for x, but only got one third of x, then the retailer has to pay damages to make up the difference.

ODriscoll

The general rule in breach-of-contract cases is that you're entitled to be put in the position you would be in if the contract had been performed. The seller should either supply the complete item for the contracted price (if necessary buying one himself for the purpose) or pay you damages sufficient to cover the cost of buying the item elsewhere, and I think that's what a court would order.

That is what I aim to achieve here, especially as mentioned in the initial post (maybe not clear enough for some) the seller clearly marked the savings on the item they were selling against rrp, not just £ but % to rrp.


The basis of the sale and agreed contract was on such a saving.

234

ODriscoll wrote: »

That is what I aim to achieve here, especially as mentioned in the initial post (maybe not clear enough for some) the seller clearly marked the savings on the item they were selling against rrp, not just £ but % to rrp.


The basis of the sale and agreed contract was on such a saving.

TBH, the way that the discount is calculated doesn't really matter (unless there are issues of mistake being raised where it might go to show a mistake), you simply contracted for something at a given price. If that item doesn't conform to its description then there may be a breach.

If this item was expensive and worth having a fight over then go to a solicitor and get them to write a letter to the retailer. If it's wasn't that valuable then try and resolve it with the retailer. Unfortunately, many retailers just ignore issues like this even when they are clearly in the wrong.

Peregrinus

Your problem is that the retailed is (presumably) not in Ireland. While you're entitled to get judgment in Ireland and then enforce it abroad, how much this will cost you and and how long it will take and how easy it will be depends on what other country the retailer is established it, and depending on how much is at stake it may not be worth your while to try.

Does amazon have any dispute resolution procedure that you can invoke?

ODriscoll

234 wrote: »

Literally all of this is wrong.

1. That isn't the test for specific performance. And yes, the retailer in certain circumstances can be forced to fork out to put the OP in the position he would have been in.

2. The contract isn't void at all. This is a breach, not something that renders the contract void, or even voidable.

3. Actually, in cases of breach the damages are there to put the OP in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed correctly. If he contracted for x, but only got one third of x, then the retailer has to pay damages to make up the difference.

That basic principle of a contract is how I intend to go about this.

ODriscoll

234 wrote: »

TBH, the way that the discount is calculated doesn't really matter (unless there are issues of mistake being raised where it might go to show a mistake), you simply contracted for something at a given price. If that item doesn't conform to its description then there may be a breach.

Fair point. No the reason why I mentioned it was because there is no way they can credibly claim the price was just for a the single part.
They showed the savings a buyer would make against the full item rrp.

Just pre covering one get out for them, if they try and claim the single part was what they were selling.

234 wrote: »

Unfortunately, many retailers just ignore issues like this even when they are clearly in the wrong.

Unfortunately true

ODriscoll

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem is that the retailed is (presumably) not in Ireland. While you're entitled to get judgment in Ireland and then enforce it abroad, how much this will cost you and and how long it will take and how easy it will be depends on what other country the retailer is established it, and depending on how much is at stake it may not be worth your while to try.

It is a retailer in England selling via Amazon that serves both Ireland and UK. (as anyone who has ever typed in Amazon.ie will instantly conclude)

You are right there is all the time and effort, it is a expensive item, so in terms of cost it will probably be worth to push.

Does amazon have any dispute resolution procedure that you can invoke?

I will need to investigate that angle, ironically this is our first ever purchase via amazon.

ODriscoll

Found out.
Amazon have a system where the emails for customer issues with retailers get sent via themselves and they record in case of escalation.

I have used the system to record the complaint.

The retailer has acknowledged their mistake, stated they are attempting to piece together the missing items to send on to me.

hullaballoo

Fair dues.

You would have gotten very different results following the "consumer guru" "advice" you see elsewhere.