Obligation for Online seller to provide goods?

[Bacnka]

Hey everyone.

 

I wondered if anyone could help me with my rights in regard to this situation.

 

I purchased goods from an online retailer (Company A) on 2nd March 2009. I was charged for them on the 10th. I still haven't received them. I sent an e-mail to the company to ask them where the items are. I then noticed the items in question were on an exclusive website that sells designer goods at discount prices (Company B), I e-mailed Company A again to note the fact they were available on Company B's website.

 

This was my reply:

 

Hey John,

 

This is Michael contacting you on behalf of Company A. I can understand your confusion as to seeing the requested stock available on Company B's website. The stock in question has been with their offices since the first week of January in preperation for their current sale. What I can suggest is that once Company B's sale has finished, and if we have left-over stock returned to us from Company B, we will then be able to start selling the returned items online again.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of Company A for this confusing series of events, and again for the delay of receiving your goods originally.

 

Please let me know if you would like to wait, and then re-order, or if their is anything else you would prefer to do?

 

Sincerest apologies.

 

This was my reply:

 

Hello Michael

 

In all honestly I'm not happy with the level of service that's been provided by Company A in regard to this, and previous orders (which I'm sure you dealt with). As a consumer, it's no interest of mine to learn at this point stock isn't available to fulfill my order. You say the stock was sent to Company B in the first week of January, I'm sure since then said stock has been reduced on Company A's website. Why would stock be available for purchase if you knew orders couldn't be fulfilled? I've been charged for the items I selected (of which some are still available for purchase on your website), I've entered into a contract with you to provide me with the products I've purchased.

 

In all honestly, and I don't mean to sound aggressive, I'm not satisfied with the level of service received and don't think I should have to wait for items I purchased two months subsequent to you having knowledge of their unavailability to become available.

 

A refund is of no interest as I would prefer to be provided with the garments I have paid for. Can you not contact Company B and ask them not to sell garments which have already been sold?

 

Kind regards,

 

Is it within my right to demand said products when they're being offered on a different website? Also the fact they've been available for purchase since January on Company A's website, and have been reduced since then tells me they have been available? Why would they keep taking orders over the period of months if they couldn't be fulfilled?

 

Any information on my rights in this situation would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome to the site.

Have moved your thread here.

[gyzmo]

IN general when buying by distance, the seller must provide the goods within the agreed timeframe, and within 30 days at the latest if not agreed otherwise.

 

I'm confused as to this company A /B thng. Are they sister companies or related in some way? Really though it has no bearing on your contract.

 

You can either require that they deliver the goods within X time or provide a refund to you. Personally I would rather go for he refund - they sound like a bunch of clowns to me.

[legalpickle]

As gyzmo states they are obliged to provide the goods within a reasonable period of time. 2 months is definitely not a reasonable period of time. The excuses of selling the items on another site is ridiculous.

 

How did you pay? If you paid by Credit Card your card company is obliged to initiate a chargeback if you request it. If you paid by VISA Debit Card, the same goes, but if you paid by another Debit Card it is worth requesting this but they are not obligated to initiate a chargeback.

 

You must hurry up though, as your time is not unlimited because the card providers do have a deadline to filing chargeback requests.

 

If that fails, then it's court proceedings. Stop being a softy!

[My Real Name]

As gyzmo states they are obliged to provide the goods within a reasonable period of time. 2 months is definitely not a reasonable period of time. The excuses of selling the items on another site is ridiculous.

 

How did you pay? If you paid by Credit Card your card company is obliged to initiate a chargeback if you request it. If you paid by VISA Debit Card, the same goes, but if you paid by another Debit Card it is worth requesting this but they are not obligated to initiate a chargeback.

 

You must hurry up though, as your time is not unlimited because the card providers do have a deadline to filing chargeback requests.

 

If that fails, then it's court proceedings. Stop being a softy!

A refund has been offered (or, at least, implied), which suggests that a chargeback would be unnecessary.

 

As for court action, what would the OP be making a claim for? Breach of contract would limit them to damages attributable to the breach - which would be the amount that was paid for the non-delivered goods. Which would be moot, as the OP would surely request a refund prior to initiating any proceedings.

 

I'm not aware of any consumer law that can compel a company to sell something that they do not have.

[legalpickle]

A refund has been offered (or, at least, implied), which suggests that a chargeback would be unnecessary.

Please advise where in the OP's post it says that a refund has been offered or implied?

Hey everyone.

 

I wondered if anyone could help me with my rights in regard to this situation.

 

I purchased goods from an online retailer (Company A) on 2nd March 2009. I was charged for them on the 10th. I still haven't received them. I sent an e-mail to the company to ask them where the items are. I then noticed the items in question were on an exclusive website that sells designer goods at discount prices (Company B), I e-mailed Company A again to note the fact they were available on Company B's website.

 

This was my reply:

 

Hey John,

 

This is Michael contacting you on behalf of Company A. I can understand your confusion as to seeing the requested stock available on Company B's website. The stock in question has been with their offices since the first week of January in preperation for their current sale. What I can suggest is that once Company B's sale has finished, and if we have left-over stock returned to us from Company B, we will then be able to start selling the returned items online again.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of Company A for this confusing series of events, and again for the delay of receiving your goods originally.

 

Please let me know if you would like to wait, and then re-order, or if their is anything else you would prefer to do?

 

Sincerest apologies.

 

This was my reply:

 

Hello Michael

 

In all honestly I'm not happy with the level of service that's been provided by Company A in regard to this, and previous orders (which I'm sure you dealt with). As a consumer, it's no interest of mine to learn at this point stock isn't available to fulfill my order. You say the stock was sent to Company B in the first week of January, I'm sure since then said stock has been reduced on Company A's website. Why would stock be available for purchase if you knew orders couldn't be fulfilled? I've been charged for the items I selected (of which some are still available for purchase on your website), I've entered into a contract with you to provide me with the products I've purchased.

 

In all honestly, and I don't mean to sound aggressive, I'm not satisfied with the level of service received and don't think I should have to wait for items I purchased two months subsequent to you having knowledge of their unavailability to become available.

 

A refund is of no interest as I would prefer to be provided with the garments I have paid for. Can you not contact Company B and ask them not to sell garments which have already been sold?

 

Kind regards,

 

Is it within my right to demand said products when they're being offered on a different website? Also the fact they've been available for purchase since January on Company A's website, and have been reduced since then tells me they have been available? Why would they keep taking orders over the period of months if they couldn't be fulfilled?

 

Any information on my rights in this situation would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks!

My understanding is that the only offer they've made is to fulfil the request when the sale is over with Company B which is unacceptable!

 

As for court action, what would the OP be making a claim for? Breach of contract would limit them to damages attributable to the breach - which would be the amount that was paid for the non-delivered goods. Which would be moot, as the OP would surely request a refund prior to initiating any proceedings.

 

I'm not aware of any consumer law that can compel a company to sell something that they do not have.

I fail to understand the purpose of your post. Obviously the OP would be suing for the refund of the amount paid plus interest, or if he could get the item elsewhere and it's more expensive then for the refund of the amount paid plus the difference in price plus interest.

 

Nowhere in my post did I say that court proceedings should be issued if a refund is not obtainable. Obviously the purpose of proceedings would be to rectify matters, and therefore not taken if matters were rectified already! Duh!

[My Real Name]

Please advise where in the OP's post it says that a refund has been offered or implied?

I inferred that a refund was on the cards from the merchant's letter:

 

is anything else you would prefer to do?

Perhaps I was wrong to interpret that as implying that a refund was possible. It doesn't preclude one though.

 

My understanding is that the only offer they've made is to fulfil the request when the sale is over with Company B which is unacceptable!

I read it as them having suggested at least one remedy to the situation, and have also asked the OP if they have any other preference on how to proceed.

 

I fail to understand the purpose of your post. Obviously the OP would be suing for the refund of the amount paid plus interest, or if he could get the item elsewhere and it's more expensive then for the refund of the amount paid plus the difference in price plus interest.

Why not just ask for a refund, rather than sue?

 

I read the OP as asking whether or not the retailer can be compelled to provide the goods / services. If the buyer has paid, and the retailer cannot, in good faith, honour the contract, can they be compelled to take extra measures to ensure completion of the contract?

 

I would suggest that the retailer cannot be compelled to provide the goods / service, although they would need to remedy the breach in some form or other.

 

My guess is that the OP might at best sue for damages caused by the breach (again, assuming that the refund has already been made), which might at best amount to the cost of a stamp or two and interest charges on the amount paid (not the statutory amount, but actual interest. So around 8p per £100 per month, give or take.

 

Nowhere in my post did I say that court proceedings should be issued if a refund is not obtainable. Obviously the purpose of proceedings would be to rectify matters, and therefore not taken if matters were rectified already! Duh!

It may have been obvious to you, but given that you wrote your post, only you knew the intent behind it.

[legalpickle]

I inferred that a refund was on the cards from the merchant's letter:

How exactly?

 

Perhaps I was wrong to interpret that as implying that a refund was possible. It doesn't preclude one though.

It doesn't, but it doesn't offer one, so yes you were wrong.

 

Why not just ask for a refund, rather than sue?

Since when does one sue without writing some form of a letter before action? Never, if they know what's good for them. Obviously - and anybody who has been advised or offered advice for any reasonable length of time would know this - a letter would be sent first. Suing is for when they refuse or don't respond, as should be obvious to anybody.

 

I read the OP as asking whether or not the retailer can be compelled to provide the goods / services. If the buyer has paid, and the retailer cannot, in good faith, honour the contract, can they be compelled to take extra measures to ensure completion of the contract?

That's one way of reading it, and the answer should have been clear from most posts, which is that they can be compelled to rectify the breach - either by providing the goods immediately or by being sued.

 

I would suggest that the retailer cannot be compelled to provide the goods / service, although they would need to remedy the breach in some form or other.

As is obvious from everybody else's posts as well.

 

My guess is that the OP might at best sue for damages caused by the breach (again, assuming that the refund has already been made), which might at best amount to the cost of a stamp or two and interest charges on the amount paid (not the statutory amount, but actual interest. So around 8p per £100 per month, give or take.

Where exactly was it recommended that the OP sue if the refund was provided? Doing such would be unlikely to succeed. s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 - the claim for interest - only allows interest where the monies are still outstanding which they would not have been if the refund had been made.

 

It may have been obvious to you, but given that you wrote your post, only you knew the intent behind it.

Right back at you!

But as I have implied above, it would be obvious to anybody with an ounce of sense that one could not sue once the breach was rectified.

[HSBCrusher]

a little bit of courtesy is free and goes a long way

[legalpickle]

a little bit of courtesy is free and goes a long way

I second that

[My Real Name]

...

We seem to be agreeing on most of this in principle, if not the detail, so I will thank you for you mind and measured response, and leave it at that. The floor, and the last word, is yours.

[HSBCrusher]

Is it within my right to demand said products when they're being offered on a different website? Also the fact they've been available for purchase since January on Company A's website, and have been reduced since then tells me they have been available? Why would they keep taking orders over the period of months if they couldn't be fulfilled?

 

Any information on my rights in this situation would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

have they offered a refund?

 

If so, accept it and buy said item from company "B".

 

As has already been mentioned, who is this company A and B anyway?

 

IMO to sue over something like this is lunacy. They will just say "we offered a refund" and you would be completely stuffed.

[legalpickle]

have they offered a refund?

 

If so, accept it and buy said item from company "B".

 

As has already been mentioned, who is this company A and B anyway?

 

IMO to sue over something like this is lunacy. They will just say "we offered a refund" and you would be completely stuffed.

But they haven't offered a refund according to what the OP has written. I am not saying the OP should sue without demanding a refund, but if they don't provide a refund then the OP should sue. Why's it lunacy if a refund hasn't been offered? The e-mail from them doesn't say they offered a refund, the exact opposite, it says wait on, we'll get it to you when we can be bothered!

[freakyleaky]

Why's it lunacy if a refund hasn't been offered?

 

Crusher said it would be lunacy if they had offered a refund.

The e-mail from them doesn't say they offered a refund, the exact opposite, it says wait on, we'll get it to you when we can be bothered!

 

Not quite. It says "Please let me know if you would like to wait, and then re-order, or if their is anything else you would prefer to do?

 

...

[gyzmo]

I thought posts 3 and 4 clearly provided the answer required. Seems that the same ground is being covered over and over.

[legalpickle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by legalpickle

Why's it lunacy if a refund hasn't been offered?

 

Crusher said it would be lunacy if they had offered a refund.

 

The e-mail from them doesn't say they offered a refund, the exact opposite, it says wait on, we'll get it to you when we can be bothered!

 

Not quite. It says "Please let me know if you would like to wait, and then re-order, or if their is anything else you would prefer to do?

 

Which does not say "do you want a refund?" If it had offered a refund, then it would be wrong for the OP to take court action, obviously. Even I wouldn't recommend that!

 

And either way before issuing proceedings, some form of letter before action would need to be sent. If they refused to refund or didn't refund when that letter was sent, then court proceedings should be issued.

 

I didn't say, just sue them right now! But bottom line, they haven't offered a refund.

 

I'd respond, "I prefer to sue you for being such incompetent nitwits, but I'll give you 7 days to give me a full refund. If you don't then I'll sue."

 

I thought posts 3 and 4 clearly provided the answer required. Seems that the same ground is being covered over and over.

I agree (especially considering one of those posts was mine).

Edited April 6, 2009 by legalpickle
Almost simultaneous post by gyzmo

[freakyleaky]

Which does not say "do you want a refund?"

Niether does it say

"wait on, we'll get it to you when we can be bothered!"

[legalpickle]

Niether does it say

"wait on, we'll get it to you when we can be bothered!"

Nope, but it's closer to "wait on, we'll get to you when we can be bothered!" than offering a refund!

[freakyleaky]

As the op has not posted since April fools day and has all the advice he needs already (IMHO) I am closing this thread until the op asks otherwise.