Non Delivery of goods (The law)

[Louisk]

Does anyone know the law/Act that covers non delivery of goods already paid for ? :?

[tom3131]

Does anyone know the law/Act that covers non delivery of goods already paid for ? :?

 

The Sale Of Goods Act Ammended.

The above act inserts "implied" contract terms, so if it isnt delivered, then it breaches the implied terms of the contract.

 

But it also depends what context this is in, for e.g.:

 

eBay seller takes payment for goods, never send them, never intended to send them, then that would be "Obtaining Goods By Deception" Contrary to the Theft Act, so thats a criminal offence.

 

But I think there was recent case law that says, once the item has been passed on to the delivery service (e.g Royal Mail) then the item is actually your responsibility, therefore I think the law says that once its posted, the seller had already delivered it to you, and that the delivery service is then responsible.

 

But dont take the above as the gospel.

 

Tom.

[meagain]

eBay seller takes payment for goods, never send them, never intended to send them, then that would be "Obtaining Goods By Deception" Contrary to the Theft Act, so thats a criminal offence.

"Obtaining a money transfer by deception", surely?

 

But I think there was recent case law that says, once the item has been passed on to the delivery service (e.g Royal Mail) then the item is actually your responsibility, therefore I think the law says that once its posted, the seller had already delivered it to you, and that the delivery service is then responsible.

 

Sounds about right. Your responsibility (quite rightly) ends once the item is in transit. If the Royal Mail break it or lose it, it's not your fault, and it's not the other person's either. Unfortunately, it seems that when Royal Mail was privatised (it is now a plc), some idiot forgot to strip it of its status as a Crown Company, so if they say it's not their fault either, you have no recourse. Of course, Customer Service probably don't know better, so you could probably threaten action anyway.

[tom3131]

"Obtaining a money transfer by deception", surely? .

 

And have some lawyer rip the case to pieces claiming a PayPal transfer/Cheque/Cash/Postal Order etc wasnt technically a "money transfer"?

 

"Goods" include money, therefore i think the offence I mentioned would be fine .

"15A. Obtaining a money transfer by deception

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a

money transfer for himself or another.

(2) A money transfer occurs when-

(a) a debit is made to one account,

(b) a credit is made to another, and

© the credit results from the debit or the debit results from the credit."

 

Taken directly from the Theft Act and clearly states that there must be a debit or credit to an account, therefore it wouldnt cover cash. .

 

Tom.

[meagain]

"Goods" include money, therefore i think the offence I mentioned would be fine

 

My apologies, and a tip of the hat to you.

[Bookworm]

Sorry to disagree, but ownership remains with sender until receipt. If you have sent goods, and did not obtain proof you had sent it, how is the recipient supposed to know you did actually send it?

 

If you did obtain proof, it is still your responsability. The contract is between sender and carrier. Therefore, sender has to pursue carrier for non-delivery.

 

E-bay is a perfect example of people flouting these on a daily basis, when sellers say: "we can not be held responsible for items lost in transit". Think again. They can, and are. Until and unless recipient has signed for the goods, the recipient has NOTHING to do with it.

 

From Trading Standard's website:

 

(For Internet Auction Sites - eg E-bay)

What if the goods are damaged in transit?

If you are selling to a consumer, you are responsible for the risk of loss or damage in transit, until the goods are delivered. If you wish to take out postal insurance, this is your responsibility, not the consumer's. Postal insurance should therefore not be offered to consumers at an extra charge.

 

(For businesses)

Loss or damage in transit

If the trader arranges for goods to be delivered to a consumer, the goods remain at the trader’s risk until delivery. It is, therefore, the trader’s responsibility to ensure that goods are not lost or damaged in transit, and/or to take out appropriate insurance. It follows that optional postal insurance should never be offered to consumers.

 

From the general to the particular: Louisk, if you paid for goods and you didn't receive them, they should either send them again, or refund you. It is then up to them to pursue the carrier for non-delivery. Hope this helps.

[valtonia]

Does anyone have any idea how this affects international postage? I ask as I run an internet shop in tandem with my retail shop and we've just had an instance where a package sent to France has not been delivered (allegedly).

 

All we have is a receipt from the Royal Mail showing that we posted it.

 

As mentioned on the previous post, the contract is between us and the carrier, so how does that work if the carrier employs a third party (french postal system?) to finally deliver the package?

 

Of course, in this case we don't know where the package went missing or to be honest that the package wasn't delivered at all. I know that we should trust our customers but we've been bitten so many times in the past...

[Louisk]

Thanks everyone

 

This all came about after I ordered a book and was then told it was no longer available. OK sent letter asking for refund - reply told me to check with neighbours to see if they had it ???????

 

Hello, if you never sent the book why would it be with a neighbour, customer service is fully automated so can not speak to human, and from the replies I ve received from customer services does nt seem like anybody can READ.

 

 

[The Phantom]

Sorry to disagree, but ownership remains with sender until receipt. If you have sent goods, and did not obtain proof you had sent it, how is the recipient supposed to know you did actually send it?

 

If you did obtain proof, it is still your responsability. The contract is between sender and carrier. Therefore, sender has to pursue carrier for non-delivery.

 

E-bay is a perfect example of people flouting these on a daily basis, when sellers say: "we can not be held responsible for items lost in transit". Think again. They can, and are. Until and unless recipient has signed for the goods, the recipient has NOTHING to do with it.

 

From Trading Standard's website:

 

 

 

From the general to the particular: Louisk, if you paid for goods and you didn't receive them, they should either send them again, or refund you. It is then up to them to pursue the carrier for non-delivery. Hope this helps.

 

I thought the above was true only if buying from a business not when buying from a private individual.

Sorry to re-erect an old thread, but I have been seeking clarification on this for ages.

I have been advised before that for a private seller responsibility ends once goods have been handed over to the carrier and a receipt to that effect has been obtained. (Based on the fact that a contract relating to a private sale is fulfilled at seller's residence. If buyer cannot collect the goods and shipping is agreed, buyer assumes all risk and responsibility once goods have been handed over to carrier. Seller has at this point fulfilled his obligations)

In a business sale the contract is fulfilled at buyer's residence, i.e. the business seller is responsible and liable until the buyer has received the goods.

As far as I was aware these were two separate things in law.

Can someone clarify ?

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_on_internet_auction_sites.htm#your_rights_when_the_seller_is_a_private_individual

[meagain]

Private sales are excused from the fitness and satisfactory quality tests. It is pretty fundamental to the concept of a sale that the seller is responsible for delivering up the goods being sold. If they have handed off to a carrier, the carrier is fulfilling this role on behalf of the seller, not the buyer.

[The Phantom]

Private sales are excused from the fitness and satisfactory quality tests. It is pretty fundamental to the concept of a sale that the seller is responsible for delivering up the goods being sold. If they have handed off to a carrier, the carrier is fulfilling this role on behalf of the seller, not the buyer.

Yes, business sellers, but not private individuals who have fulfilled their obligation once goods were handed over to the carrier.

I was just looking for that bit about transit risk in private sales, not business sales.

All I can get is the basics from the CAB website where it says (quote)

 

 

"Your rights when the seller is a private individual

 

When you buy goods from a private seller, you may not be able to make a claim against them if the goods are damaged or lost before delivery"

 

 

 

That's from the CAB and confirms what I have been told,but it only gives very basic information, I was looking for the actual contract law / point of law this comes from.

I have previously been told it comes from contract law, whereby a private sale is fulfilled / completed at the SELLER'S residence. I.E. the buyer has to collect the goods. If this is NOT POSSIBLE and shipping is agreed, this will always be at buyer's risk, unless the seller has specifically offered (and buyer accepted) transport insurance. (Mainly because the contract was already completed once seller received payment at his address / residence)

A business sale is only completed once the goods have reached the buyer hence transit is seller's risk.

And I am looking for exactly this point of law where this is stipulated.

I may have to speak to a solicitor or a lawyer specialising on this, because I really would like to know and there appear to be a lot of opinions flying about.

[Ted99]

Hi

 

I ordered a TV on the internet.

 

I was given a date for delivery and the company failed to deliver. When I rang they had no reason for non delivery and when I asked for a new delivery date they said they didn't know.

 

I cancelled the goods verbally then and by email and by registered post.

 

Having looked this company up I have found out that they have done this thing before and especially apparently, not refunding money paid.

 

I have now sourced the tv from amazon but a cheaper model because amazons price ( and others) was more expensive than the original order price.

 

Can someone advise me

 

1)How long I will have to wait for non payment of refund before I can reasonably start a small claims court action to recover same.

 

2)Is it possible to also claim damages for the difference in price I had to pay for the amazon order and the original order ?

 

PS: As of now they have failed to confirm the cancellation

 

 

Thanx

[gyzmo]

1. 30 days

2. Possible yes, probable win = no

3. Please start own thread!

[ted22]

1. 30 days

2. Possible yes, probable win = no

3. Please start own thread!

 

ok, will do, thanx

[meagain]

*poof*

Edited September 11, 2008 by meagain
duplicate

[meagain]

All I can get is the basics from the CAB website where it says (quote)

 

It would appear that the CAB website is wrong.

 

Sale Of Goods Act 1979, s.27: It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods [...]

 

There are plenty of places in the Act where the words "unless otherwise agreed" pop up. This isn't one of them. See also s.29, which makes it clear (at least, clearer than most points of law) that handing the goods to a courier doesn't amount to "delivery". The condition is "until the third person acknowledges to the buyer that he holds the goods", which for postal or courier service would be the actual delivery or that little card through the door. Note that this doesn't have a qualification on seller-as-business. There's also s.35(2) which provides a right of examination, and a further provision which guarantees this right for buyer-as-consumer, which means you can argue that if things are "lost in the post", you have not had the opportunity to examine and therefore reject the goods.

 

In general, parties are free to enter into any contract they see fit, but the contract is inferior to everything else - statute, the Common Law, regulation, etc. Contracts generally cannot exclude rights guaranteed by law.

 

There are of course provisions that read the other way.

 

If you feel you need to seek professional help you should do so, since any part of this post, including this sentence, may be wrong.

[gyzmo]

It is much simpler to refer to the distance selling regs. However, where they do not apply, then Sale of Goods or equivalent legislation is needed. the general rule is that risk passes with property. But one only need look at some sections dealing with future goods, unascertained good and specific goods to see how easily a problem can arise. The essence in most cases is " When does property pass".

 

s. 29 gives an answer, but again we can refer to the DSR as something more specific. And we must also refer to s. 20.

 

It is an area I do not bother myself with, nor do I feel a need to in the majority of cases.

[Daley]

So........, if you buy something from China but they don't send it out, where do you stand then?

[gyzmo]

Well that depends on where the contract was made and what the contract states as well as the applicable law. One may have to make the claim under chinese law. If its a [EDIT], your probably looking at your credit card chargeback for help. Otherwise you're proverbially buggered

[jack99uk]

Hi all,

I recently sent a valuable tape (by royal mail special delivery) to a company who offered to convert it to dvd. They received it and did the conversion, invoicing me for an amount which I paid which included £5 stated for 'postage'.

They didn't provide any T &Cs nor are any available on their website. They are quite a big established company. I was told I needed to pay the invoice before my tape and DVD conversion would be returned, so I did. I wasn't offered any postage methods, and it wasn't talked about. I assumed they would return it special delivery.

The tape is basically a one-off and extremely valuable (made to order for around £50k originally). You can guess the next part of the story. The tape and DVD was sent back to me by standard first-class, and lost by Royal Mail. I've not been provided proof of postage and since it wasn't sent Special Delivery it's not trackable and in 3 months it hasn't turned up.

They've offered me £200 to drop the matter, but this doesn’t cover the amount I’m out of pocket. They claim they were right to assume that I would have a spare copy of the tape, and so they didn’t have a duty to treat the tape as valuable and irreplaceable like it is. Can anyone point me to the law on claiming significant damages for the loss of the tape? Or any specialists I could speak to?

Many thanks.

[bobincork]

jack99uk: You should be ashamed of yourself, if the tape was as valuable and almost priceless as you say, the making of a copy would be simple common sense. The offer made is more than generous. The current claim culture is simply not acceptable.

[bobincork]

My reason for joining this forum:

If I order from a British internet site and do not receive the goods, being a forgetful person, how long can I allow, at the most, before claiming for a refund ?

If I did not let them know for, lets say 20 years, that must be unreasonable, but is there any limit by law. ?

Royal Mail limits are just a couple of weeks.

I cannot find anything at .gov.uk.

[jack99uk]

jack99uk: You should be ashamed of yourself, if thetape was as valuable and almost priceless as you say, the making of a copywould be simple common sense. The offer made is more than generous. The currentclaim culture is simply not acceptable.

I disagree Bob. This is a company that specialises in copying tapes likemine. If I'd got a copy of the master made, I'd have got it done with them, andthey'd again have lost it in the post.

 

And getting copies (on DVD) is exactly what I was doing by contracting themto do the work. (DVD takes a slight quality loss but is still great for thepurposes I need the film for).

Obviously I wish i'd impressed upon them the value of the film, and need forspecial delivery to protect it - but that also goes without saying. Most companiessend anything of remote value by special delivery, especially in the filmindustry - my £5 postage was sufficient to pay for special delivery and Iexpected that was what I'd got. Again, it went without saying that it needed tobe posted special delivery.

Even if I had a backup the value of the work done was greater than the £46compensation you get from Royal mail for lost post, so they should have sent itSpecial Delivery by default.

 

The issue is I contracted professionals for a professional and importantjob. If I’d just been getting a friend to do the work I probably would haveimpressed the need for it to be returned special delivery because of the value.But because they are professionals and a leading company in the industry Ithought I could trust them to make sure the film wasn't lost. It’s pretty muchcommon sense to know that standard first class mail isn't secure or guaranteed.

[bobincork]

I disagree Bob. This is a company that specialises in copying tapes likemine. If I'd got a copy of the master made, I'd have got it done with them, andthey'd again have lost it in the post.

 

And getting copies (on DVD) is exactly what I was doing by contracting themto do the work. (DVD takes a slight quality loss but is still great for thepurposes I need the film for).

Obviously I wish i'd impressed upon them the value of the film, and need forspecial delivery to protect it - but that also goes without saying. Most companiessend anything of remote value by special delivery, especially in the filmindustry - my £5 postage was sufficient to pay for special delivery and Iexpected that was what I'd got. Again, it went without saying that it needed tobe posted special delivery.

Even if I had a backup the value of the work done was greater than the £46compensation you get from Royal mail for lost post, so they should have sent itSpecial Delivery by default.

 

The issue is I contracted professionals for a professional and importantjob. If I’d just been getting a friend to do the work I probably would haveimpressed the need for it to be returned special delivery because of the value.But because they are professionals and a leading company in the industry Ithought I could trust them to make sure the film wasn't lost. It’s pretty muchcommon sense to know that standard first class mail isn't secure or guaranteed.

 

Jack, I am completely on the fence on this one, I see the issue from both sides. Although now retired, I ran a printing business for 25 plus years and sometimes agreed to have finished jobs delivered to customers throughout the UK (the percentage of distant customers was small). We produced high quality work, on time and at a good price. We used various delivery services including Royal Mail and TNT. We charged delivery, "at cost" and did not charge the overhead of the extra work involved in using extra packing, labour and double the time on administration. Our professionalism did not extend to carriage of goods that was entrusted to "the professionals" in the field of delivery. We accepted liability for the goods until they left our premises.

My view in your case is that the company you used were also likely to be professional in producing a first class product and that they were let down by Royal Mail. There is little guarantee that special delivery would not have lost your item either, the only advantage would have been the extra compensation and if that had entered into your calculations before you paid for the postage what level of compensation, at what cost, would you have chosen ?

On the 14/09/2010 I sent a letter by Special Delivery to N17 6RT, had to be there for the 16/09/2010, Royal Mail ref: AR164224630GB took four days, not next day, it was a letter, of no value other than the fact that the late delivery resulted in a monetary loss to me. Last December received a package that had taken 18 days to travel 1 mile, cost me a £1600 order.

Please, before you accuse the company of inefficiency, consider the fact that the loss of your tape, was not really their fault and, as mentioned before, Special Delivery would have resulted in only a little more compensation. I am surprised that they have not kept, at least for a while, a digital copy of your DVD, however my original post stands. Hope your tape turns up eventually.

[jack99uk]

Speaking with Consumer Direct today was very useful. They say that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act, the company had an obligation to act with reasonable care and skill- that their contract with me to deliver the goods back to me stands, and that they are liable for the consequential loss I have incurred.

 

The fact that their subcontractor (Royal Mail) let them down/or not is irrelevant to me - I was advised. The only issue I have to think about is the fact that they entered into a contract with me to return the goods which they have not done. They were free to contract anyone - a courier, a different postal service to deliver the goods to me, or to deliver it themselves personally- and they have to sort out their issue with Royal Mail themselves.

 

This was very good to hear, and Consumer Direct passed the issue on to Trading Standards.

 

Obviously I can speculate about their choice of subcontracting to Royal Mail as they did and the financial and ethical implications for them and I, as a customer who has been let down. In the previous 5 years I've worked on my film i've always sent its components or versions to collaborators by special delivery - even when I could barely afford to, because I was aware how easily things can be lost in standard delivery. Its not just about the compensation special delivery offers - its not about that at all actually - its the fact that items are posted separately from standard mail, and given a tracking number, making them much easier to find if they go missing, and much less likely to go missing in the first place.

 

I think they were reckless to send my items, and others by first-class- and only chose to do so to make money. They say they've used standard mail for 8 years, probably saving them £4 or so on each item they post, so might have saved £10k doing this. Or another way of looking at it, they charged me £5 for postage which probably only cost £2.50 so they could have made a lot over 8 years doing this. If they couldn't guarantee my item would be returned to me I would have travelled and collected it from them, or used a different company in the first place. To my mind, and the law quoted above, a guarantee that the film would be returned to me after conversion was implicit in the contract I made.

 

I think that this law is there for a reason and I hope to get some proper compensation for my very real loss.

 

 

Bob, thank you for sharing your experiences and best wishes, but as Consumer Direct advised me today- the law is clear in that this company engaged in a contract with me to return my film, and have failed to do so. Why that happened is a dispute to be had between them and their subcontractors (Royal Mail), and in the meantime they are liable for my consequential loss.