Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I understand that, my point is why is the account still be reported on 6 years after the default date has passed regardless of the SB date.   The default expired 4th November, Cabot put a query on the account the 7th November so it is still showing in my history, my question is why are they doing it?        
    • You will have to go to court to get an order  and once that is doen then you both have to abide by it. The actual form filling is not complicated and the first court session doesnt actually make any decisions and you will be advised to reach an agreement that can then be set in stone by the court.   the father has a right to "contact", but this is not the same as having the right to demand a particular set of visits, stopovers etc so decide what you want, and how this is practical and then ask that the contact be limited to this. for example if you work your contact will all be gettinmg them up, feeding them, putting them to bed and have no fun time at weekends if has has them then. The courts will do what is in the best interests ogf the child so you need to stop being jealous of their love for their father and dont try and use the system to punish him or the children. If he was abusive or controlling them read up on the serious crimes  act  2015 about controlling and coercive behaviour and see how amny fo the examples fit his behaviour and use that to get the courts to set lterms that  limit that behaviour instead of using the children as the tools.
    • Does anyone know if a person has the right  to use a lay representative in the family division of the county court? the wording of the Lay representatives(right of audience) order 1999 refers to a county court and stage 1 or tier 1 proceedings and Scots law have a form to fill out for such representation but it isnt clear whether the english system has such a clearly defined right of audience. The MoJ mentions it in some discussion papers as though it is hard and fast but in other documents  it is McKenzie Friends who are written about as if they are the only people allowed other than sols/barristers.   reason why lay rep needed is they can speak and the other side cant object where with McKenzie friend they cant speak on behalf of claimant/respondent and the other party can object to that person being present- which will happen  in this particular case. Ultimately it may well be a discretionary power of the judge but dont want to start off with a bad step.
    • It seems as though the solicitoras want to keep hold of this payday and will do anything to churn it ( make money by continuing an action that isnt in the clients interests).   The land registry will have the record of who paid for the property and how so you will be in the clear on that as you didnt just take the place over, you bought it from the estate of the deceased.   now it seems like your mother is struck by regrets/remorse over her inability to take over the property at the time and what tends to happen is that relatives will sit there and say bad things about the person who they see is the beneficiary of their misfortune and then get into a feedback loop, each reinforcing the wrong opinion of the other.   Your attempts to sort things out logically ahs tempered this somewhat so do continue and keep clear of their  lawyers at all costs, they will just keep the meter ticking over and bring the negative thought back to the surface.   your parents will already be about 2 grand a day down on anything the sols have done so try and get them to  look back to the mess that her father's death left them in and amke it clear that at least the house is still in the family and that she has benefitted from that by receiving money at the time that otherwise she wouldnt have got.   If that still causes friction then I would still write to them rather than responding to the solicitor, the lesson they will learn will cost them less and when the sols have moved on to the next client they will have not lost so much of what they still have left.   Ultimately if they do actually issue proceedings you can ask for the claim to be chucked out as having no merit etc by showing how the place was bought. I do struggle to believe that people dont know who their mortgage was with even after all of this time,  same as I find it odd that people suddenly find details for accounts with tens of thousands in that they had forgotten about. You can find out as again it will be in the Land registry entry for most properties that had a mortgage
    • A claim was issued against you on 30/07/2019 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 31/07/2019 at 18:14:49 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 01/08/2019 at 08:05:52 Your defence was submitted on 30/08/2019 at 23:17:46 Your defence was received on 02/09/2019 at 01:06:05 DQ sent to you on 27/09/2019 DQ filed by claimant on 27/09/2019 You filed a DQ on 23/10/2019 Your claim was transferred to BIRMINGHAM on 14/11/2019
  • Our picks

katze2000

Cancellation of Contract following a Solicited Visit

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4637 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've got myself in a pickle over ordering a kitchen from what turns out to be a rather unscrupulous supplier/manufacturer. There were 2 visits to my home by a sales rep, both initiated by myself, the first is supposed to be free of charge but on the 2nd visit it's understood that you are more than likely to place an order which I did. I signed the contract at 6pm one evening but after doing some research on the internet I found that the company I was dealing with did not have a good reputation in terms of value for money, reliability and it also mentioned some sharp practices. So the next morning I rang the company and cancelled my order which I confirmed by email, having stopped my cheque for the £3800 deposit beforehand. The cheque was stopped and that side is fine. However, the day before - and to my great shame - I also parted with £1500 in cash which the sales rep encouraged me to pay in order to avoid paying VAT on the granite worktop which another company was going to supply. This granite company was the one the kitchen company always used when people wanted granite worktops, I was told. My partner witnessed all of this. I have a hand-written receipt for the £1500 signed by the sales rep on behalf of the granite company. No address or any other details given.

 

When I asked the kitchen co. for the return of my £1500 they told me it has nothing to do with them but that they would put pressure on the guy who took it. They also told me that the sales rep is not employed by them, he is free-lance and it was my choice to go for granite worktops with another co, not theirs. I had no ideal they also provided granite worktops, and perhaps they don't but just say so. They in turn told me that I am in breach of contract and they claim 10% of the price of the kitchen ie £1100 for their admin costs!!! I told them that was totally out of proportion to their expenses, having cancelled the contract within 24 hrs of placing it and quoting the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs, 1999. I offered them £50 for their minimal admin costs. They rejected that in a WITHOUT PREJUDICE letter dated 6 Feb 07, also telling me that they are seeking legal advice since I was threatening legal action (which at that time I was not).

 

I have since repeatedly asked them to let me know who is in possession of the £1500, the rep, the kitchen co or the granit co. The silence has been deafening. In my last letter I told them that if I didn't hear from them, I would start legal proceedings and I would like to. But I don't know who to take to court. My gut instinct is that it is the kitchen co., that they are all in this together, these 3 parties, but how to prove it? I made enquiries about the Granite Co. through Companies House, there was an address, no tel. no. So I have written a letter to the Director asking who has the money. That was last Friday. So far no response and quite frankly, don't expect one.

 

Can anyone help? I'm sorry it's such a complicated story. I have no experience in legal matters, but I have read up on your and other websites about cases such as mine where, because it was a solicited visit to my home when I signed the contract, one does not seem to have the same right as one would have, had it been an unsolicited visit. I believe, however, that the Law is going to be changed. Does anyone know when and should I perhaps wait until after that before taking legal action, if only to strengthen my case, not that it would be retrospective.

 

I'd be grateful for your comments, you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to take them to the Small Claims Court anyway, as the salesman was their agent, it is not your responsibility if he's creaming off items to a third-party firm. Hang on to your receipt, and let the firm explain to the judge. This would also give them (the firm) their chance to have their counterclaim evaluated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Buzby. Salesperson whether or not employed by the company is acting on their behalf. You believed you were entering into a contract with one company and not two as the kitchen company would have bought the granite worktop from the granite supplier and installed it, I take it? This should be the case unless you signed to say you were happy for a sub contractor to supply and fit the granite worktop, which I doubt. Therefore you were in one contract to one company and your dispute is with them as their agent, did the deal, paperwork, contract and receipt. It would be interesting to know what companies name was on the receipt for the cash. I wonder, do they issue seperate receipts for the company that supplies their door handles, light fittings, facias etc.Hope this has helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally if the visit is solicited you would not have rights to cancel and would be liable to pay damages to cover the company's losses (this can include a reasonable amount to cover loss of profit, not simply admin costs I'm afraid).

 

10% is a guideline that I would suggest based on previous cases could potentially be classed as reasonable. In my job we have advised companies that they can use it as a guideline figure, however ultimately only a court can decide on what is reasonable. Bear in mind that you ARE in breach of contract and liable for an amount for loss of profit in addition to any admin costs.

 

Unless the rep has made any other representations to you, you can assume that he was acting as an agent for the kitchen company so I would feel that it is reasonable for you to assume that the £1500 has gone to them. If he is a rogue agent, that is their problem and not yours.

 

You can certainly sue for return of the amount; however you are very unlikely to get it all returned to you as you are in breach of contract and you will have to pay reasonable damages to them, which would ultimately have to be decided by the judge. Unless the judge feels that there are exceptional circumstances that you haven't mentioned here, one possible example being you were induced into the contract by a misrepresentation (false statement), you certainly won't get away with just paying £50.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments, buzbi and calvi. The hand-written receipt, which incidentally was given grudgingly, simply says: "Received £1500, date, for granite deposit. With thanks, signature." I have a separate piece of paper, also hand-written, no letter-head, giving my name & address and stating that ... Granite Ltd will supply ... granite worktops to my new kitchen. To include delivery, etc etc. Monies to be paid on completion £1800. For and on behalf of ... Granite Ltd. Signature.

 

The receipt from the kitchen co. is a one page affair on their letter-headed paper titled 'Supply Only Order' and simply giving the order value, deposit paid and balance. Although it says Supply Only Order, the box "Does the Customer Require a Recommended Fitting Service" was ticked as Yes and we were quoted a figure of £1700 for that service which we were given to understand would be carried out by their fitters. (What the internet article revealed was that when the fitters (who were not employed by the firm) turned up, they would say that the price quoted didn't include VAT and they wouldn't do the work unless that was paid. The price for the supply of the kitchen, however, is VAT inclusive according to the signed document, and any ordinary person would think that the fitting service would also be VAT-inclusive. It was this and similar revelations that made me cancel the contract.)

 

When I showed this piece of paper to the Citizens' Advice Bureau they said where are their terms & conditions. I actually remember asking the sales rep about these but got somehow sidelined. When I asked in writing for them later on after my cancellation, I was told that they don't have any but 'are happy to abide by the terms laid down by British Statutory Law.'

 

So, the answer to your question whether I was happy for a sub contractor to supply and fit the granite worktop, is a bit of a grey area. I thought they worked hand in glove with each other but I did know that it was a separate company providing that service but that the kitchen co. was in overall charge and would supervise the granite people. In retrospect I realise how stupid I've been to have been taken in like that but at the time I was just focusing on getting the kitchen right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here is my slant on this and am going to play devils advocate a tad.

 

You have a receipt that was hand written from the agent saying Granite Ltd, handwritten again?.

 

Is the agent an authorised agent of Granite Ltd?

 

Were you informed you would be entering into a contact with Granite Ltd?

 

Did you sign a contract or an order for the Granite Worktop directly from Granite Ltd?

 

Have Granite Ltd or the Kitchen Company banked the £1500?

 

"Received £1500, date, for granite deposit", very interesting this point as it's so grey it's almost black.

 

"I have a separate piece of paper, also hand-written, no letter-head, giving my name & address and stating that ... Granite Ltd will supply"

 

Were you informed directly that Granite Ltd would be supplying the worktop direct to you or would they be supplying it to the kitchen company?

 

Who was actually ordering the worktop from Granite Ltd? You or the kitchen company?

 

"Does the Customer Require a Recommended Fitting Service" was ticked as Yes and we were quoted a figure of £1700 for that service which we were given to understand would be carried out by their fitters."

 

Does the £1700 amount include or exclude vat on the order, it must clearly state this in either the order form or the terms and conditions, which obviously you did not get as the buggers don't issue any!

 

"So, the answer to your question whether I was happy for a sub contractor to supply and fit the granite worktop, is a bit of a grey area. I thought they worked hand in glove with each other but I did know that it was a separate company providing that service"

 

1. you should have been informed you were entering into two seperate contracts with two seperate companies whom the agent represents.

 

2. From what you have written I believe you have been mis sold as you only signed a contract/order with one company and that is the kitchen company.

 

3. A deposit was taken illegally for the granite worktop as this was being supplied by a seperate company whom you had not placed an order nor signed a contract to suplly goods with. I would class this as mis-selling.

 

I hate unethical sales with a vengeance and I work in sales in a different market, no am not a banker lol.

 

All of the above is my opnion only and am sure the admins and mods will advise you on relevant points of law. My understanding of law of contract is that under FSA terms you must be advised you are entering into and agreement. This does not seem to have happened here as you believed you were contracting to one company.

 

As for the 10% the Kitchen company are attempting to charge, i would class this as a penalty charge as you cancelled within 24 hrs. had they placed the order with the kitchen manufacturer? What time did they place it? Had they placed an order with Granite Ltd and what time did they place it? They would have to prove that they had placed both orders within the 24 hr period that you cancelled in. If they did not then £1100 is unlawful is this does not represent the actual costs that they incurred in cancelling your order.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments, buzbi and calvi. The hand-written receipt, which incidentally was given grudgingly, simply says: "Received £1500, date, for granite deposit. With thanks, signature." I have a separate piece of paper, also hand-written, no letter-head, giving my name & address and stating that ... Granite Ltd will supply ... granite worktops to my new kitchen. To include delivery, etc etc. Monies to be paid on completion £1800. For and on behalf of ... Granite Ltd. Signature.

 

The receipt from the kitchen co. is a one page affair on their letter-headed paper titled 'Supply Only Order' and simply giving the order value, deposit paid and balance. Although it says Supply Only Order, the box "Does the Customer Require a Recommended Fitting Service" was ticked as Yes and we were quoted a figure of £1700 for that service which we were given to understand would be carried out by their fitters. (What the internet article revealed was that when the fitters (who were not employed by the firm) turned up, they would say that the price quoted didn't include VAT and they wouldn't do the work unless that was paid. The price for the supply of the kitchen, however, is VAT inclusive according to the signed document, and any ordinary person would think that the fitting service would also be VAT-inclusive. It was this and similar revelations that made me cancel the contract.)

 

When I showed this piece of paper to the Citizens' Advice Bureau they said where are their terms & conditions. I actually remember asking the sales rep about these but got somehow sidelined. When I asked in writing for them later on after my cancellation, I was told that they don't have any but 'are happy to abide by the terms laid down by British Statutory Law.'

 

So, the answer to your question whether I was happy for a sub contractor to supply and fit the granite worktop, is a bit of a grey area. I thought they worked hand in glove with each other but I did know that it was a separate company providing that service but that the kitchen co. was in overall charge and would supervise the granite people. In retrospect I realise how stupid I've been to have been taken in like that but at the time I was just focusing on getting the kitchen right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS, My fingers are bleeding as i don't type much lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

I'd be grateful for your comments, you guys.

 

I think I'd tell them I'd far rather settle it amicably, without having to bring in the VAT inspectors to advise on whether or not the money was received by them ...

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'd tell them I'd far rather settle it amicably, without having to bring in the VAT inspectors to advise on whether or not the money was received by them ...

 

Tim

 

 

I can see your point Tim, but by the sounds of this company C&E will already be onto them me thinks. But by all means use C&E as a leverage point on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the 10% the Kitchen company are attempting to charge, i would class this as a penalty charge as you cancelled within 24 hrs. had they placed the order with the kitchen manufacturer? What time did they place it? Had they placed an order with Granite Ltd and what time did they place it? They would have to prove that they had placed both orders within the 24 hr period that you cancelled in. If they did not then £1100 is unlawful is this does not represent the actual costs that they incurred in cancelling your order.

 

Sadly as I explained, this isn't a penalty charge as this sort of contract would work very differently to the bank charges you guys are claiming back.

 

As per my previous post, the company is entitled to withhold a reasonable amount for loss of profit, which can ultimately only be determined by a judge.

 

The only way around this really is to prove that there are exceptional circumstances, such as a misrepresentation which induced you into entering the contract. From what you have said this would be unlikely.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx Rosie, am not a legal begal, if what you say is indeed correct then I would offer the salary of the agent for the time he spent and admin costs in cancellation, I would not offer loss of profit on the £1500 as I view this as mis selling in the strictest sense. The lady did not place an order with Granite Ltd as far as i can see. If loss of profit is due at 10% on contract/order signed then it's a hard one to take, but one must take it.

 

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately it's down to a court to decide what is a reasonable amount to withhold for loss of profit, and down to the individual to decide whether the case is worth taking to court.

 

All I can say is that our business adviser will tell companies that it is not automatically unreasonable to quote 10% as a figure, but it can be challenged in the courts and would then be down to the judge on the day to decide.

 

It's not ideal in contracts like this one, where salesmen are good at piling on the pressure. The Government are looking into updating the legislation so that solicited visits to your home have a seven day cancellation period too, and it will be about time too in my personal opinion.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your advice, calvi - sorry about your fingers, and also rosiecotton. I do feel that there was mis-selling. The absence of terms & conditions on their part is a deliberate ploy so that one is not aware that there is a fee for cancellation. I had no idea that one would not be able to cancel, penalty-free, an order that was placed on 6pm one evening and cancelled at 11am the next morning. What you, calvi, said in your last para is the exact point I made to the kitchen co. In one of my letters I pointed out that in the unlikely event that an order had been placed it would require a simple phonecall to cancel that order as it could only have been placed literally within a few minutes of receiving my cancellation. So as to make doubly sure, I asked them for a break-down of their costs but have not received any reply.

 

You are quite right in assuming that I did not sign a separate contract with Soandso Granite Ltd. A big deal was made about the £1500 being a VAT avoidance and jokes were made about me, hopefully, not working for the Inland Revenue etc. When I spoke on the telephone to the kitchen sales rep after the cancellation he indicated that if it came to the crunch, he would deny this payment having anything to do with VAT avoidance. He was simply taking a deposit because they have had cases before were people like me cancelled for no good reason, so they made sure they got a cash deposit up front. When I heard this it reinforced my earlier suspicions that they are not trustworthy people to do business with and I refused to re-instate the order as was suggested by them.

 

Of course at that time I thought the sales rep was talking on behalf of the kitchen co. (which I still think he is) and he left me with a business card which gives name, address & contact details of the kitchen co. together with his name and underneath: Marketing Manager. How can some-one go around with a business card like that and then turn out to be self-employed? It's all very fishy and I'm not sorry I cancelled even if I never see the £1500 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately it's down to a court to decide what is a reasonable amount to withhold for loss of profit, and down to the individual to decide whether the case is worth taking to court.

 

All I can say is that our business adviser will tell companies that it is not automatically unreasonable to quote 10% as a figure, but it can be challenged in the courts and would then be down to the judge on the day to decide.

 

It's not ideal in contracts like this one, where salesmen are good at piling on the pressure. The Government are looking into updating the legislation so that solicited visits to your home have a seven day cancellation period too, and it will be about time too in my personal opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Law Relating to Penalty Clauses

In the case of Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [1906] AC 368, Lord Dunedin formulated the test for Penalty clauses as follows;-

"The general principle to be deduced …is …that the criterion of whether a sum -- be it called penalty or damages -- is truly liquidated damages, and as such not to be interfered with by the Court, or is truly a penalty which covers the damage if proved, but does not assess it, is to be found in whether the sum stipulated for can or can not be regarded as a 'genuine pre-estimate’ of the creditor's probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principal obligation”

In the above noted case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company Limited, Lord Dunedin set out a series of propositions in respect of Penalty clauses, which have often been cited and relied upon for the last 90 years. These propositions being:-

 

2. The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party.

3. The essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage.

 

 

I would say you are quite correct Rosie on point 3 and that as contract had been entered into then any proposed pofits could be reclaimed. however i would say that as this has been a mis sell that would be quite probably proven at court then that katze had a case to take. Katze is the offending party for cancelling, however the reasons for cancelling would be that the lack of advice or overt avoidance by the sales rep would have to be taken into consideration. she asked for terms and conditions and states salesman sidelined her.

she thought she was ordering from one supplier not two.

 

 

All the best Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

short reply for you katze, as thought grrrr unethical sales I hates the b**s****. I would pursue this in writing to them accusing them of mis-selling and ignore foc, this is an FSA matter, which am a registred member of. We all have different opinionsonlots of subjects, we all have different specialities, mine is certainly not consumer laws but when it comes to law of contract and mis selling and overt non compliance of FSA the bring it on is what this Jock says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not giving terms and conditions and not telling you that you have no rights to cancel is not a misrepresentation however - to have a misrepresentation you have to first have a representation. If they'd told you "oh no problems, you can cancel" this would have been a misrepresentation but they are under no obligation to make any comment on this.

 

The supplier issue is a weird one, but as far as I am aware probably will not affect your cancellation issues. You can claim that you were not aware that there was a separate contract based on what the agent told you, therefore your contract is with the original company alone. However you are still in breach of this contract regardless of this, unless you can prove that the fact it was all one company is a fact which induced you to enter into the contract for the kitchen in which case you can claim that it was a misrepresentation.

 

All very messy and not a nice situation at all.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, isn't it complicated. Thanks ever so much for everybody's advice. Will have to mull it all over and decide where to go from here. I like the idea of using C&E as a leverage - it's worth a try isn't it. If that doesn't work and if Rosie is correct, then there is probably not much point in taking it much further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Scenario..........

 

I go to buy a car from a dealer.....

 

I sit down and negotiate the deal and then I sign a contract and pay a deposit by cheque for the vehicle.

 

I am then told Michelin supply the tyres. I say that’s great.

Am told Michelin tyres like their deposit in cash. I pay £305 deposit.

No mention of seperate contracts.

 

Am told that kwakfart make the exhausts under license from Adecoo Brasil, I say oh right, never heard of them.

Kwakfart like deposits in cash they have credit lines to support with Adecco Brasil. I pay £222 deposit.

No mention of seperate contracts.

 

 

I cancel the order for the car and then find out I paid £305 for the tyres and £222 for the exhaust and that my cash deposit for the tyres and exhaust is irrelevant. I was told the tyres were £305 and the exhaust was £222 not sure if this was plus or ex vat but that it would be included in my second receipt which is handwritten.

 

 

Oh by the way they wanted a fiver so WURTH would put some anti freeze into the bottle at a flat rate of 9.00% per annum. They replace each year free of charge am told, ok I say. I don’t know how flat rates compare to APR not that it would matter as I don’t know how they work either. No mention of a finance agreement, was just asked to sign.

 

 

I was never told I was purchasing individual items from any company, I was buying a complete unit, a car!!!!!!!

 

As they had no terms and conditions that I could read then I was completely unaware of this. I thought I was buying a car! OR A KITCHEN LOL, POINT TAKEN?

 

NOT BITS OF AN ASSEMBLY LINE.

 

I pay deposit on car by cheque, then all other deposits by cash, am i in contract with all other suppliers that added parts to the car. No I am not. No terms and conditions from either company pahh, they have no right to trade then and am talking about kats problem I used the above as an analogy.

 

 

Not giving terms and conditions and not telling you that you have no rights to cancel is not a misrepresentation however - to have a misrepresentation you have to first have a representation. If they'd told you "oh no problems, you can cancel" this would have been a misrepresentation but they are under no obligation to make any comment on this.

 

The supplier issue is a weird one, but as far as I am aware probably will not affect your cancellation issues. You can claim that you were not aware that there was a separate contract based on what the agent told you, therefore your contract is with the original company alone. However you are still in breach of this contract regardless of this, unless you can prove that the fact it was all one company is a fact which induced you to enter into the contract for the kitchen in which case you can claim that it was a misrepresentation.

 

All very messy and not a nice situation at all.[/quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still wouldn't be a misrepresentation I'm afraid, you knew what you were getting - all these parts on this hypothetical car would be part of the contract with the dealer regardless of who the supplier is - but the fact they are sourced elsewhere would not be enough to make the contract voidable. You would still get the promised goods should the contract go through.

 

I honestly wish I could be more positive but I can't, it would be wrong of me to give the idea that just because they are using a separate company for part of the order this would be some form of misrepresentation.

 

Yes, you can argue that the granite tops are all part of the same contract provided you were not expressly told otherwise. But this won't really help you when it comes to cancelling the contract, it won't itself make the contract voidable and damages would still be claimable.

 

By all means, go for it as far as you can and write letters etc, it would ultimately be your decision whether to take it to court and claim that 10% is not a reasonable amount to keep.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what Rosie says if you were advised correctly then you will be liable. I am not being obtuse here rosie but a person must only agree to a contract after being provided with all terms and conditions of the contract, if they do not then poor them. However this is different as the agent was freelance and acting on behalf of two companies, one he said he represented and one he obviously was doing a sideline with. Crux of it is, Katze thought he/she was in contract with one company. If this was myself I would hammer it out in the court, reputation of company is case exceptionelle as far as am concerned and also back it up with mis-selling complaint to fsa.

It still wouldn't be a misrepresentation I'm afraid, you knew what you were getting - all these parts on this hypothetical car would be part of the contract with the dealer regardless of who the supplier is - but the fact they are sourced elsewhere would not be enough to make the contract voidable. You would still get the promised goods should the contract go through.

 

I honestly wish I could be more positive but I can't, it would be wrong of me to give the idea that just because they are using a separate company for part of the order this would be some form of misrepresentation.

 

Yes, you can argue that the granite tops are all part of the same contract provided you were not expressly told otherwise. But this won't really help you when it comes to cancelling the contract, it won't itself make the contract voidable and damages would still be claimable.

 

By all means, go for it as far as you can and write letters etc, it would ultimately be your decision whether to take it to court and claim that 10% is not a reasonable amount to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even if the court determines that the contract is in fact with one company, she will still be liable for the cancellation of that contract... that's the problem. I don't believe a judge will see the fact that there may have been two suppliers as a reason to avoid the contract.

 

Reputation of the company is not a reason to cancel either unfortunately. Many people have doubts after a contract, but sadly by then it's too late. As I said though, the law on this may be changing in the future for any sales made in someone's home.

 

If you're prepared to risk court then fair play, but I wouldn't expect the judge to avoid the contract on the information given here. He may reduce the damages; I would see that as being the best-case scenario.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis of my argument rosie is that katze has bee mis sold, I was merely bringing up the other points as they could be addendums as to when the judge makes his decision. if it it known that a company is trading illegally in other matters of law then it can and will have a decision in any case. Mis selling is illegal and that is what has happened here so far as I see. If there is a track record of historical complaints again the same company for the same breaches then they can also be taken into consideration. I believe what am typing and this is no offence to you I know as i have viewed many of your posts. This must be treated as mis selling and if the company has a complinace manager, which they must have and am sure they are, then go down that route.

 

 

quote=rosiecotton;679529]But even if the court determines that the contract is in fact with one company, she will still be liable for the cancellation of that contract... that's the problem. I don't believe a judge will see the fact that there may have been two suppliers as a reason to avoid the contract.

 

Reputation of the company is not a reason to cancel either unfortunately.

 

If you're prepared to risk court then fair play, but I wouldn't expect the judge to avoid the contract on the information given here. He may reduce the damages; I would see that as being the best-case scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By mis-selling I assume you would mean misrepresentation of part of the contract. In order to claim that the contract is voidable due to misrepresentation, the part of the contract that was misrepresented must be shown to be central to the contract, to have been a direct inducement to the consumer to enter into the contract.

 

Believe me I can fully understand why you believe this whole situation is wrong, it seems unscrupulous for sure - but illegal? I'm not sure.

 

It would be interesting to see what a judge would have to say, however there would be a risk involved in taking the case to court.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By mis-selling I assume you would mean misrepresentation of part of the contract. In order to claim that the contract is voidable due to misrepresentation, the part of the contract that was misrepresented must be shown to be central to the contract, to have been a direct inducement to the consumer to enter into the contract.

 

Believe me I can fully understand why you believe this whole situation is wrong, it seems unscrupulous for sure - but illegal? I'm not sure.

 

It would be interesting to see what a judge would have to say, however there would be a risk involved in taking the case to court.

I believe it is illegal, as the party to have made the contract with the supplier has been;

 

ill advised

 

mis sold

 

and pressured

 

she was ill advised in that she signed a document which I have not seen purporting to be a contract in law with no expressed terms, ther cannot also be any implied terms from a non existant set of term of condition that this company could have produced in law and therefore set precedent. Yet it has been stated above no terms or conditions were available.

 

mis sold due to the fact that the salesman did not clearly identify which products or companies he was an agent for, you will find that this is also a breach of fsa as you have to notify any client that you represent x company or y company or both. And or that you are not qualified to sell insurance nor financial products.

 

pressured as she was sidelined whilst asking for a set of terms and conditions, with a witness available.

1.I would suggest this is a valid claim to have the £1500 returned.

2. Due to mis-selling and representation from an agent acting on behalf of one company he purported to act on behalf of another sub contracted company of the primary one and therefore misled the client that it was one company she was dealing with.

3. No terms or conditions of the purported agreement were available, nor made available as no such conditions existed with the company selling the goods.

 

I will so look forward to your response and my wife is shouting GET OFF CAG lol. I also firmly believe that should this one go to court that katze will be successful as her contract is unenforceable in law due to being mis-sold

 

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say on these points:

 

- Companies do not have to make terms and conditions expressly available, however they cannot impose terms on a contract after it has been entered into - equally neither can the other party, and if there are no terms mentioned they would have to rely on statutory legislation - which would, of course, not allow for cancellation rights. Contracts can be legally binding even if they are solely verbal, there does not have to be a printed list of terms and conditions.

 

- the mis-selling is probably not enough to make the contract voidable. Yes, the salesman did not clearly explain the situation but even if the OP had known that the granite worktops were a separate contract she may well have still entered into the contract to buy. I.e. if Katze had been told that the granite tops were to come from a different supplier under a separate contract, would she have then said No to the entire contract or is it reasonable to assume she would still have gone ahead. Any misrepresentation must be shown and proven to have been central to the OP agreeing to enter into a contract to have any effect at all. Katze would need to prove that the salesman had made a false statement to her and that the statement had induced her into entering the contract. That's the definition of misrepresentation, and that is what can make a contract voidable (not unenforceable, a slightly different term).

 

The judge would have to decide whether the contract is one contract with the original company - in which case there has been no misrepresentation as the OP got what she thought she was getting and the contract will be binding - or two separate contracts with two companies, and in that case whether the OP was led to believe that it was one company and if this was a deciding factor in her choosing to enter the contract. Only then would there be an argument for voiding the contract.

 

- sadly high pressure sales can still lead to a legally binding contract. This is why unsolicited goods have a cooling off period. Currently solicited visits do not have this same protection as it is assumed that the consumer will have had chance to do research and prepare for the visit, therefore are less likely to make bad decisions. This isn't always the case, though, and that's why it's being looked at again. The law change would not be retrospective though, and may take a while to introduce.

 

Financially, there is no regulated agreement regarding the granite worktops as they have been paid in full and there is no credit relating to them. Katze didn't mention a credit agreement or any paperwork relating to this. Is there a credit agreement for the rest of the kitchen Katze, and have you received the signed copy of this? This might actually help you out, if this is the case and you have not received the signed second copy.

 

If there is no credit agreement, of course the FSA would have no say in this as it will be a simple purchase transaction.

 

I would stand by my thoughts that the best Katze can hope for in court would be reduced damages, unless there is a credit agreement which was not previously mentioned - which could have a bearing on things.


Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...