You're right, i didn't think of that! I've heard nothing since though so hopefully that'll be it, i did say i'd only make the payment if it meant it was settled...
Last edited:
(under)Payment Legality
- Thread starter sandy27
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,592
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
TBH I am not sure I believe the OP here on I didn't notice the difference.
Even so, IMO you have a contract for payment of X, an email is sent asking for Y.
Did you receive an invoice in advance or in arrears of the payment.
You must have had one at some point, what does that say?
The sales person will not have had access to the accounts and as such once paid (someone will have confirmed Y arrived) he would be releasing the car.
What has probably happened is someone in accounts has been trying to find why their accounts was £1k out compared to the invoiced books (my guess is it was correctly invoiced) and has finally tracked it down to this car.
I have never seen an invoice or agreement that doesn't state goods title does not pass until payment has been made in full.
TBH I would say the importance of documents would be contract > invoice > email. Its certainly not uncommon to issue multiple invoices, or credit and reinvoice even when something has been paid in the commercial world.
Even so, IMO you have a contract for payment of X, an email is sent asking for Y.
Did you receive an invoice in advance or in arrears of the payment.
You must have had one at some point, what does that say?
The sales person will not have had access to the accounts and as such once paid (someone will have confirmed Y arrived) he would be releasing the car.
What has probably happened is someone in accounts has been trying to find why their accounts was £1k out compared to the invoiced books (my guess is it was correctly invoiced) and has finally tracked it down to this car.
I have never seen an invoice or agreement that doesn't state goods title does not pass until payment has been made in full.
TBH I would say the importance of documents would be contract > invoice > email. Its certainly not uncommon to issue multiple invoices, or credit and reinvoice even when something has been paid in the commercial world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
The fact both parties have agreed no such thing happened.
If you signed a contract to pay amount X and were only charged "X less Y" then in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary you will be on the hook to pay Y.
If this ever became a 'legal argument', they will point to the contract you signed, which is pretty conclusive of the price you agreed to pay. Your counter-argument that you're not obliged to pay would be saying they had waived their right to the payment. I personally don't think that argument is compelling because it makes no sense that they would knowingly and willingly do this, combined with your clear signed agreement to pay a different price. From the info that has been presented, the undercharge is most likely to be considered a mistake.
However, the details of your exchanges, including the form of the emails / invoices, may shift the position. I may have missed where this was clarified, but were you issued an invoice that was different from the payment request? What does that say? A request / link for payment is not necessarily an invoice. If you have fully paid an invoice, then that invoice should be settled, but that won't stop them issuing an invoice for the outstanding amount, in which case their legal action will be in respect of that second invoice.
Whether they can be bothered to pursue it is another matter entirely. There may be no desire from their finance team to consider it further if they are sitting on a fully paid invoice (albeit incorrectly issued), so it may just be the one salesman wondering what to do about it.
If it were me personally, I'd willingly pay it because I'd think really poorly of myself if I didn't pay it, but also for peace of mind. But for the above reasons, you may have scope to sit on it a bit longer, to see if it escalates or not, taking a risk on whether they decide to take action on it - if they do take action and you continue to sit on it, you will potentially risk interest (depending on the invoice situation) and paying legal costs.
Edit: actually, I've never heard of 'signing via a Microsoft Teams call'. How was this 'signed'? I won't be bothered to comment in more detail on this topic, but perhaps there is something in that which collapses the concept of there being a signed contract, which changes the evidential burden. Maybe so, maybe not. But you've already admitted on here the price you agreed to... so there's that as well I guess.
Yes. If any settlement is offered like this, it should be made on a 'without prejudice' basis (together with a full denial of liability in respect of the same) and in full settlement of all liabilities, rights of action and losses + costs in respect of the same.
If this ever became a 'legal argument', they will point to the contract you signed, which is pretty conclusive of the price you agreed to pay. Your counter-argument that you're not obliged to pay would be saying they had waived their right to the payment. I personally don't think that argument is compelling because it makes no sense that they would knowingly and willingly do this, combined with your clear signed agreement to pay a different price. From the info that has been presented, the undercharge is most likely to be considered a mistake.
However, the details of your exchanges, including the form of the emails / invoices, may shift the position. I may have missed where this was clarified, but were you issued an invoice that was different from the payment request? What does that say? A request / link for payment is not necessarily an invoice. If you have fully paid an invoice, then that invoice should be settled, but that won't stop them issuing an invoice for the outstanding amount, in which case their legal action will be in respect of that second invoice.
Whether they can be bothered to pursue it is another matter entirely. There may be no desire from their finance team to consider it further if they are sitting on a fully paid invoice (albeit incorrectly issued), so it may just be the one salesman wondering what to do about it.
If it were me personally, I'd willingly pay it because I'd think really poorly of myself if I didn't pay it, but also for peace of mind. But for the above reasons, you may have scope to sit on it a bit longer, to see if it escalates or not, taking a risk on whether they decide to take action on it - if they do take action and you continue to sit on it, you will potentially risk interest (depending on the invoice situation) and paying legal costs.
Edit: actually, I've never heard of 'signing via a Microsoft Teams call'. How was this 'signed'? I won't be bothered to comment in more detail on this topic, but perhaps there is something in that which collapses the concept of there being a signed contract, which changes the evidential burden. Maybe so, maybe not. But you've already admitted on here the price you agreed to... so there's that as well I guess.
Yes. If any settlement is offered like this, it should be made on a 'without prejudice' basis (together with a full denial of liability in respect of the same) and in full settlement of all liabilities, rights of action and losses + costs in respect of the same.
Last edited:
What I think from the dealers perspective it'll go something like:
Salesman got in trouble, either the accounts dept or his boss has asked him to chase it, he chases it a few times, gets nowhere, gives up. Some time later, the accounts/his boss with chase him, he'll say they got nowhere.
That'll go back up the chain, then someone will have a meeting to try and figure out what they can do, chances are at that stage, they'll just say its more hassle then its worth and give up.
You got a 50/50 chance of keeping your £1000 and I'd give it a go. If it were some other business I'd potentially pay it, but most car dealers would rob their own grandmothers for a commission, and most treat their customers like dirt once they have your money.
Salesman got in trouble, either the accounts dept or his boss has asked him to chase it, he chases it a few times, gets nowhere, gives up. Some time later, the accounts/his boss with chase him, he'll say they got nowhere.
That'll go back up the chain, then someone will have a meeting to try and figure out what they can do, chances are at that stage, they'll just say its more hassle then its worth and give up.
You got a 50/50 chance of keeping your £1000 and I'd give it a go. If it were some other business I'd potentially pay it, but most car dealers would rob their own grandmothers for a commission, and most treat their customers like dirt once they have your money.
So excuse theft/fraud based on some misplaced form of moral justice because "some car dealers are scum" according to you?
Just lol at this.
Do you have any warranty with them? Are you likely to ever need to use them again?
Try Legal Advice UK on Reddit, you may get answer from someone who actually knows but I'd guess most people will say that you should pay up as that's what the contract states.
Try Legal Advice UK on Reddit, you may get answer from someone who actually knows but I'd guess most people will say that you should pay up as that's what the contract states.
Not sure if Teams has built in functionality, but I'd guess during the call the OP was sent a link to an electronic signature document, e.g. via Signable, Docusign etc.
Pretty sure these are as legally binding as any other signed document.
Yes, they are.
As an aside, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone tries to witness a deed electronically (if they are not actually physically in the presence of the person executing the deed) if it can be avoided. Not worth the headache if somebody queries it - people can get nervous that it’s not properly executed and will probably insist it’s re-executed in hardcopy to be sure.
Last edited:
I definitely don't!
Its a typo 22 vs 21.
Maybe it was a mistake. But you'd notice.
What would you call it?