Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Foreign currency problem...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5598 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Please please please help me with this problem - I need your advice.

 

Here is the main text of an email I sent to a company that sells foreign currency:

 

"Dear Mr CENSORED,

 

 

As you can see below, on 14/10 PERSON mistakenly advised me that this currency was due to be delivered on 14/12.

 

I was in Thailand at the time, but advised my mother when to expect the parcel with said cash inside – on or around 14/12. She took delivery of a parcel the day after this date.

 

This was given to my father who visited me over Christmas.

 

Only the parcel was a book I’d ordered from elsewhere. The actual currency was delivered ten days before – and had been held in the post office until the 17th – that da my father arrived in Thailand, and the day I called my mother to chase up my missing money, and she went down there and picked it up.

 

On checking my emails, I found a confirmation email from yourselves, detailing the correct delivery date. I therefore assumed I had made a colossal mistake.

 

But it was your colossal mistake, I have discovered over the weekend – from the forwarded email. You did not send me this contract until months after the order was placed, as you should have. You sent out a confirmation immediately when I ordered £1000 of travellers cheques from you later on.

 

This left me with the problem of getting the currency to myself. I needed it for the first week in Australia as the travellers cheques were to pay for a yoga teacher training course. And converting it to pounds in the UK, and then back to Aussie dollars, two months ago, would have lost me £250 value in the money.

 

So I had to arrange for it to be sent by post, and take responsibility if it went wrong, as it was my fault.

 

It was sent to my address in Thailand, but did not arrive before I left. The Thai lady in the hotel has sent it on in a pre-paid box I left her, but that was almost four weeks ago, and it has not arrived. The hostel it was sent to have not taken receipt of it, and I am currently waiting for the proof of posting from the Thai lady who sent it from there. But she is trustworthy and I know she isn’t lying.

 

I have been completely stressed out for two weeks, especially as the Thai postal system shows the parcel as ‘accepted for delivery,’ but there is no way to actually trace it after it is sent.

 

I then discovered your email today – and am now so relieved. It was your mistake that created this ****ing sorry mess, not mine, and so you have to pay for it.

 

You will need to send me $4440, in Australian travellers cheques, to the following address:

 

CENSORED

 

Please do so immediately, or I will have to forefit my pre-paid yoga course, and return home early on a new flight. This will add at least double onto what you owe me, and will result in further costs when (if I have need) to instruct a solicitor to take up my case in court.

 

Sincerely,

 

CENSORED"

 

I waited two weeks for a reply. Nothing. Then another week after emailing asking for their response. Nothing.

 

Called yesterday. The person who sent this email above, was dismissed four weeks ago. But they are not checking his emails, or sending emails out to tell you he is no longer there.

 

The manager has told me I don't have a case, which is codswallp. He suggested "some kind of compensation" before I ended the call, totally distraught.

 

What should I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inclined to agree. Their liability to you would be limited to delivering to you the funds that you had arranged. Arranging hese things by remote controle is fraught will difficulty (as you have discovered) and whilst I'm sure they will apologise for your stress and inconvenience, it really isn;t their problem, as they provided the service you asked for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But their website clearly details that they cannot be held responsible for consequential loss "if the currency is delivered late on not delivered." This currency was delivered EARLY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's immaterial I'm afraid. An early delivery would be viewed as an advantage. Stating that they are not liable for delayed or late delivery is simply ensuring the purchaser is aware of the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...