Online seller refuses to send product

[dowie]

Even if they did breach the contract, what recourse do you think the OP would deserve other than a refund?

The short answer is none as the OP has been put back into the position they were in before the contract started. There is no scenario that I can see that the OP would be reasonably due any other form of compensation in this kind of transaction and the UK doesn't have punitive damages.

It's interesting, I'm inclined to agree that realistically the OP should just take one of the offers made to him.

In trading though this sort of thing (fat finger error or a salesperson/voice broker misquoting something or not paying attention and giving an overly generous quote just after the price of something has rallied) would be reliant on the goodwill of the counterparty to undo, otherwise if the trade has been done then they're obliged to settle. You can't necessarily phone back a day later after your counterparty has done whatever/has whatever position and then necessarily expect a trade to be undone as some of their subsequent trades are in part contingent on the fact that that trade happened.

So hypothetically: "There is no scenario that I can see that the OP would be reasonably due any other form of compensation" suppose the OP was a small system builder or reseller and this component was for a customer who had since been quoted a price and already paid the OP, OP priced things competitively but wouldn't have done so quite as competitively if he'd had to pay £100 or £200 more for this component. There is a hypothetical scenario where the OP acting in good faith, gets a competitive price, puts on his usual mark up and then gets left out of pocket.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Given the nature of the of the transaction, I just cant see any realistic expectation that failure to supply has any onward consequences other than the purchase doesn’t get what they ordered and all that needs to be rectified if the OP is put back in the position they were in when they started.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

I bought a product that was on sale around 50% off it's usual price in a well known online shop, paid for it via PayPal, they acepted it and even sent it. Then I get a phone call from then telling me that the price was a human mistake and they cannot sell it to me. So they recall the product from the courier and offer me the following options:

• Refund plus £25 for their mistake
• Pay an extra £100 to get the product I already paid for (that's still ~£100 less than the current price)

I had a look at their T&Cs and they state that when they accept the payment there will be a "concluded agreement between us"

What should I do GD? Formal letter? Lawyer up? Take up one of their offers? Stand and bang?

As others have already pointed out, even if you have a contract they can still cancel if it was a genuine mistake that you should've noticed which is clearly the case. Legally you don't have a leg to stand on. They've offered you two very generous goodwill options that they didn't have to and you're contemplating legal action because they won't take a huge loss on it. I say take one of the goodwill offers and stop being so entitled.

 

[hurfdurf]

As others have already pointed out, even if you have a contract they can still cancel if it was a genuine mistake that you should've noticed which is clearly the case. Legally you don't have a leg to stand on. They've offered you two very generous goodwill options that they didn't have to and you're contemplating legal action because they won't take a huge loss on it. I say take one of the goodwill offers and stop being so entitled.

100% agree, the OP is being a right Karen.

 

[Rroff]

There is a draft bill to clarify it ongoing at the moment but I don't think it is part of law currently. It is generally accepted that at the point of dispatch, when the customer has been notified of dispatch, the transfer of ownership happens so recalling it from the courier without the customer's permission or other exceptional circumstances like a health and safety issue is actually dubious. But the law is complex and in some parts vague.

Pretty poor show on the part of the company though especially as it could seriously inconvenience the customer by that point.

(In most cases "goods are delivered to a carrier for delivery to the consumer" takes precedence over "goods are delivered to the consumer" which is the next stage if the first one doesn't apply).

They're not going to leave themselves open to breach of contract in these scenarios, pretty much every online retailer will reserve the right to cancel at any time before delivery.

I can't say for sure what applies in this case but T&Cs can't override statutory rights.

 

[GreatAuk]

+1 for taking the refund + £25, or if you actually want the item and it's still good price (which it sounds like it is) then pay the extra £100.

I would expect most places just to have refunded and apologised. Sounds like it's only the fact that they've recalled it from the courier that means it's possible you might have a legal case.

It s not great service from the company involved, but personally there's no way I'd bother taking them to court for this - they've caused inconvenience rather than actually scammed you as I see it. If I felt they'd actually scammed me then I'd want to take it all the way, but for me personally I don't think this situation warrants that approach.

 

[LeoK]

It's a little harsh to imply the OP was trying to take advantage. They simply asked, "what should they do?" The OP then presented a number of options, including legal. It's reasonable to ask an open question.

As mentioned, sellers have the right to cancel where there is a mistake which you ought to have known. A current CPU, at half price, probably falls into that case.

On another note, yesterday I saw a new 8TB SSD for sale. Clearly the price was wrong. I didn't bother. If I was exceptionally lucky, they would honour it. More likely I would end up chasing for a refund for an item never received.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

I would expect most places just to have refunded and apologised. Sounds like it's only the fact that they've recalled it from the courier that means it's possible you might have a legal case.

This is why they shouldn't really offer gestures of goodwill, way too many ungrateful people who will wrongly assume the retailer are only offering it because they were in the wrong for cancelling.

 

[Jono8]

+1 for taking the refund + £25, or if you actually want the item and it's still good price (which it sounds like it is) then pay the extra £100.

I would expect most places just to have refunded and apologised. Sounds like it's only the fact that they've recalled it from the courier that means it's possible you might have a legal case.

It s not great service from the company involved, but personally there's no way I'd bother taking them to court for this - they've caused inconvenience rather than actually scammed you as I see it. If I felt they'd actually scammed me then I'd want to take it all the way, but for me personally I don't think this situation warrants that approach.

What is his legal case though? What are the damages to the OP? It would be an immense waste of time to take this down the legal route.

If he takes the £25 he is actually in a better position than he was before he ordered the incorrectly priced item?

The retailer could have just lied and said there was a problem with the order/it got lost with the courier and given him a full refund. They could have just said they realised they sent the wrong item, recalled it and cancelled his order.

if an item does get lost/stolen in the post, the retailer is not bound to sending you the item. They could just give you a full refund.

I think the OP should be happy that they have offered pretty generous gestures of goodwill when they didnt even need to.

 

[Jono8]

So hypothetically: "There is no scenario that I can see that the OP would be reasonably due any other form of compensation" suppose the OP was a small system builder or reseller and this component was for a customer who had since been quoted a price and already paid the OP, OP priced things competitively but wouldn't have done so quite as competitively if he'd had to pay £100 or £200 more for this component. There is a hypothetical scenario where the OP acting in good faith, gets a competitive price, puts on his usual mark up and then gets left out of pocket.

i guess in that case, he may have more of leg to stand on legally (ie if he was a business himself). As a consumer though, I don't really see how he can claim he is disadvantaged/lost money etc without making something up/lying. Especially considering they have offered him £25 which i think is pretty generous.

 

[GreatAuk]

What is his legal case though? What are the damages to the OP? It would be an immense waste of time to take this down the legal route.

If he takes the £25 he is actually in a better position than he was before he ordered the incorrectly priced item?

The retailer could have just lied and said there was a problem with the order/it got lost with the courier and given him a full refund. They could have just said they realised they sent the wrong item, recalled it and cancelled his order.

if an item does get lost/stolen in the post, the retailer is not bound to sending you the item. They could just give you a full refund.

I think the OP should be happy that they have offered pretty generous gestures of goodwill when they didnt even need to.

Well IANAL, but I would have thought the best case would be that OP would be able to have his contract fulfilled and the item delivered at the original price.

I was really thinking of one of the above posts which explains it's not very clear in law, but could be considered that once an item has been dispatched it isn't really the shop's to take back any more. So could be argued they 'stole' it and should give it back.

I 100% agree that the legal route would be a waste of time and if I were in this situation I'd happily choose one of the goodwill gestures.

 

[Jono8]

but could be considered that once an item has been dispatched it isn't really the shop's to take back any more. So could be argued they 'stole' it and should give it back.

Seems very grey though, and cant really be correct. I can't see how it still isnt really in posession of the shop because If it doesnt make it to you, it is still the shops responsibility ultimately isnt it? The courier doesnt pay a customer for a lost item, the retailer has to refund the consumer, and claim compensation from the courier they sent it via. Likewise, if the retailer realises they put the wrong item or address in/on the package they can still choose to recall the package, thus it would still seem as though it is the retailers property, until the item has been delivered no?

 

[Mysterae_]

Even OCUK can do the DPD inflight redirect, I know from experience. Ages ago I ordered a 34" Predator screen online but had a problem with the website. Phoned up and got it fixed, but then discovered that two screens were on their way to me. So OCUK called up DPD to redirect one of them but the muppet DPD driver redirected both!

As for the OP, if you really really want to push this then call your credit card company and see what they say. The £25 'goodwill' gesture could be them hoodwinking you knowing fine well that it's in the contract to supply you the goods you paid for.

 

[GreatAuk]

Seems very grey though, and cant really be correct. I can't see how it still isnt really in posession of the shop because If it doesnt make it to you, it is still the shops responsibility ultimately isnt it? The courier doesnt pay a customer for a lost item, the retailer has to refund the consumer, and claim compensation from the courier they sent it via. Likewise, if the retailer realises they put the wrong item or address in/on the package they can still choose to recall the package, thus it would still seem as though it is the retailers property, until the item has been delivered no?

Maybe, but I can see how it's a grey area with some potential for the customer to get what they want. Instructing the courier to bring the item back seems a bit different to them losing it to me, and I could see their responsibility for the item during shipping as just that - a responsibility, rather than a right to do what they want with it.

I have faith that if you paid an expensive lawyer enough money they'd be able to make a good argument out of it

 

[Jono8]

Even OCUK can do the DPD inflight redirect, I know from experience. Ages ago I ordered a 34" Predator screen online but had a problem with the website. Phoned up and got it fixed, but then discovered that two screens were on their way to me. So OCUK called up DPD to redirect one of them but the muppet DPD driver redirected both!

As for the OP, if you really really want to push this then call your credit card company and see what they say. The £25 'goodwill' gesture could be them hoodwinking you knowing fine well that it's in the contract to supply you the goods you paid for.

What will his credit card company do if he gets given a refund? I can't imagine he will get anywhere with them.

 

[Rroff]

Even OCUK can do the DPD inflight redirect, I know from experience. Ages ago I ordered a 34" Predator screen online but had a problem with the website. Phoned up and got it fixed, but then discovered that two screens were on their way to me. So OCUK called up DPD to redirect one of them but the muppet DPD driver redirected both!

As for the OP, if you really really want to push this then call your credit card company and see what they say. The £25 'goodwill' gesture could be them hoodwinking you knowing fine well that it's in the contract to supply you the goods you paid for.

In that case though technically you only had a contract for one of those screens and they effectively had your agreement on returning one of them from the courier.

In this case unfortunately the law is a bit vague/some grey areas but strictly this isn't about damages as Jono8 put it but about the rights laid out in consumer contract law. The seller still has an obligation to get your property delivered to you and as promised, but the transfer of ownership typically is understood in a case like this at the point of dispatch. Unfortunately it isn't really worth going legal on this which is probably what they are banking on and/or their customer service people don't know the law/don't care.

 

[kona786]

It’s irrelevant what the T&Cs say as either party can back out of the transaction before it’s been completed (aka when the product has been delivered).

You couldn’t really even claim damages even if they did breach the contract outside of the refund they have already offered you.

TLDR: take the £25 and a refund as you don’t really have a leg to stand on. They didn’t even need to offer you the £25.

Exactly this. Move on with your life OP.

 

[Rroff]

It’s irrelevant what the T&Cs say as either party can back out of the transaction before it’s been completed (aka when the product has been delivered).

You couldn’t really even claim damages even if they did breach the contract outside of the refund they have already offered you.

TLDR: take the £25 and a refund as you don’t really have a leg to stand on. They didn’t even need to offer you the £25.

I'm not a legal person but the literature we work to at work "product has been delivered" only applies if we delivered it ourselves, if we hand the goods over to a 3rd party it constitutes transfer of ownership to the customer at point of dispatch - though we still have an obligation that it gets to the customer and in the state, etc. as agreed. Though legally it seems a bit vague in some cases.

Given the nature of the of the transaction, I just cant see any realistic expectation that failure to supply has any onward consequences other than the purchase doesn’t get what they ordered and all that needs to be rectified if the OP is put back in the position they were in when they started.

Unfortunately it will likely work out like this - ultimately the expectation in contract law is to either fulfil the contract as agreed or put the other party back in the state they were before the agreement was entered into.

 

[Rainmaker]

It’s irrelevant what the T&Cs say as either party can back out of the transaction before it’s been completed (aka when the product has been delivered).

You couldn’t really even claim damages even if they did breach the contract outside of the refund they have already offered you.

TLDR: take the £25 and a refund as you don’t really have a leg to stand on. They didn’t even need to offer you the £25.

Nope. The contract was created and complete when the retailer took payment, confirmed the order in writing and certainly when they dispatched the goods.

OP, look into 'loss of bargain' and breach of contract. They would, in theory, be liable to pay you the difference between the price you paid and the price you now have to pay to another retailer for the same goods. Or, honour the original binding contract. Interesting one, definitely seek real legal advice. I can't stand retailers who take the pee like this.

As for all the 'obvious pricing mistake'... was it? Or did you just think it was on sale/a bargain?...

 

[Jono8]

In this case unfortunately the law is a bit vague/some grey areas but strictly this isn't about damages as Jono8 put it but about the rights laid out in consumer contract law. The seller still has an obligation to get your property delivered to you and as promised, but the transfer of ownership typically is understood in a case like this at the point of dispatch. Unfortunately it isn't really worth going legal on this which is probably what they are banking on and/or their customer service people don't know the law/don't care.

But if he makes a legal claim based around breach of contract, what is he going to ask for/claim that he lost without lying/telling porkies?

He will have been put back in the position he was before with the refund (and in this case, he has actually been given £25 as a gesture of goodwill). He is actually in a better position than he was in before.