Private sale gone so wrong :(

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

I have just read through this thread, i had followed in up until the first 2 pages of the thread when the thread was originally created, and having seen the way the thread has gone i thought it might be worthwhile pointing out some facts.

In the event the buyer took legal action:

1 - by failing to collect on the arranged date and failing to inform the buyer of such, she had repudiated the contract i.e. failed to fulfill her side of the contract - Therefore she forfeited the money she gave to the seller.

Repudiation means "going to the heart of the contract", The buyer has already paid mising a date to collect by a few days after a wait of 6 months hardly qualifies, no one denied the existance of a contract. Why would anyone fortfiet anything?

2 - The seller attempting many times to contact the buyer to arrange fnd out why the buyer failed to collect and to arrange another collection date. Buyer failed to respond - therefore the seller made all reasonably expected efforts to resolve the issue amicably.

Or the conrty argument

The buyer kindly agreed to delay picking the goods unitll the sellar had a replacement, then ater six months whe the buyer was just a couple of days late the sellar distroted the goods after recieving payment(argumental hardly evindence)


3 - Seller suffered a financial loss to the value of the goods as a result of the buyer failing to collect and the goods having to be stored outside in bad whether due to no storage room, which is perfectly reasonable given it is a residential property and room for an additional sofa is unlikely. As such the seller is entitled to the money the buyer paid to cover her financial loss.

The buyer lost out when they paid for goods they did not recieve( none argumental FACT)

Therefore the seller in the event of any claim being issued, would not only have a counter claim for breach/repudiation of contract by the buyer, financial deteriment/loss equal to the value of the sale/goods, but also a counter claim for harassment (reference text messages).

Then they should have counter claimed not distroyd the goods

I can see where peter is coming from, but given i own a wholesale company and have come across this a number of times, where a customer (usually local) has wanted to pick the goods up rather than pay for courier costs only to fail to pick the goods up (goods that we had to order in and do not generally keep in stock) and then demand a refund i have to disagree that a court would take the buyers side, in fact far from it in all honesty - Truth is the sales of goods act protects the seller.

Relevant sections of the Sales of Goods act 1979 belowisnt any, wouldnt apply)

37 Buyer’s liability for not taking delivery of goods.
(1)When the seller is ready and willing to deliver the goods, and requests the buyer to take delivery, and the buyer does not within a reasonable time after such request take delivery of the goods, he is liable to the seller for any loss occasioned by his neglect or refusal to take delivery, and also for a reasonable charge for the care and custody of the goods.

And would this amount to the full cost of the goods? Not in your life

(2)Nothing in this section affects the rights of the seller where the neglect or refusal of the buyer to take delivery amounts to a repudiation of the contract.

You cannot repudiate a contract if you have already paid the bill.

50 Damages for non-acceptance.

(1)Where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, the seller may maintain an action against him for damages for non-acceptance.

(2)The measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the buyer’s breach of contract.

(3)Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time or times when the goods ought to have been accepted or (if no time was fixed for acceptance) at the time of the refusal to accept.

This would tend to support the buyers case , the market value of the suite after being out in the rain being very iittle i shoud imagine

Note the above applies even when the buyer is under the contract suppose to collect the goods, and the above also applies for when the goods are paid or unpaid. Section 37 and 50 makes its clear the OP is within her rights to refuse a refund and keep the money to cover her costs, financial loss on the value of the goods.

I hope this information helps clarify things.

Hope my additions clarify things

I oubt wenther the sale of goods act would apply and if it did i think it would be on the side of the buyer.

Anyway looks like the OP has gotten away with it so i suppose that alls well.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

HI As an aside

Repudiation of contract does not mean that all liabilities suddenly dissapear, it means that performance under the contract ceases and that it would have to be rescinded, in other words the liabilites would have to be repaid.

There may be an argument that costs could be deducted from this refund i suppose.


Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

HI As an aside

Repudiation of contract does not mean that all liabilities suddenly dissapear, it means that performance under the contract ceases and that it would have to be rescinded, in other words the liabilites would have to be repaid.

There may be an argument that costs could be deducted from this refund i suppose.


Peter

Exactly and in this case the cost was equal to the total value of the goods.

Originally Posted by teaboy2
I have just read through this thread, i had followed in up until the first 2 pages of the thread when the thread was originally created, and having seen the way the thread has gone i thought it might be worthwhile pointing out some facts.

In the event the buyer took legal action:

1 - by failing to collect on the arranged date and failing to inform the buyer of such, she had repudiated the contract i.e. failed to fulfill her side of the contract - Therefore she forfeited the money she gave to the seller.

Repudiation means "going to the heart of the contract", The buyer has already paid mising a date to collect by a few days after a wait of 6 months hardly qualifies, no one denied tthe buyer he existance of a contract. Why would anyone fortfiet anything? No it doesn't any part of a contract that is a core part, that a party fails to fulfill is repudaition as it prevents the contract being fulfilled in its entirety

2 - The seller attempting many times to contact the buyer to arrange fnd out why the buyer failed to collect and to arrange another collection date. Buyer failed to respond - therefore the seller made all reasonably expected efforts to resolve the issue amicably.

Or the conrty argument

The buyer kindly agreed to delay picking the goods unitll the sellar had a replacement, then ater six months whe the buyer was just a couple of days late the sellar distroted the goods after recieving payment(argumental hardly evindence) Correction peter the op clearly stated they listed the goods for sale 6 weeks ago in their OP and the collection date was agreed with the buyer as being the 26th November. Their is no law stating they must keep the goods incase the buyer who has failed to collect then decided to collect at a later date. All that a court would expect is for the seller to make reasonable attempts to contact the buyer to rearrange a collection nothing more nothing less. In fact keeping the goods for 7 days after the missed collection date if deemed more than reasonable. Your clearly changing the facts of the case at hand here.


3 - Seller suffered a financial loss to the value of the goods as a result of the buyer failing to collect and the goods having to be stored outside in bad whether due to no storage room, which is perfectly reasonable given it is a residential property and room for an additional sofa is unlikely. As such the seller is entitled to the money the buyer paid to cover her financial loss.

The buyer lost out when they paid for goods they did not recieve( none argumental FACT) It was under the contract agreed that the buyer was responsible for collection, therefore the seller is not responsible for the buyer being in breach of such agreed term of the contract. And yes it is an agreed term of contract that the buyer would collect the goods is this case. So why would the seller therefore be liable for the buyers financial lose, when they breached the contract and the seller suffered a loss equal to the value of the goods as a result. Sorry peter it doesnt work the way you would like it too.

Therefore the seller in the event of any claim being issued, would not only have a counter claim for breach/repudiation of contract by the buyer, financial deteriment/loss equal to the value of the sale/goods, but also a counter claim for harassment (reference text messages).

Then they should have counter claimed not distroyd the goods - No one destroyed the goods, it was a matter of not having any storage room and was no fault of the seller, as overall it was the buyer neglect to collect the goods that led to the goods being stored outside, so the buyer is ultimately responsible for the loss of value on the goods.

I can see where peter is coming from, but given i own a wholesale company and have come across this a number of times, where a customer (usually local) has wanted to pick the goods up rather than pay for courier costs only to fail to pick the goods up (goods that we had to order in and do not generally keep in stock) and then demand a refund i have to disagree that a court would take the buyers side, in fact far from it in all honesty - Truth is the sales of goods act protects the seller.

Relevant sections of the Sales of Goods act 1979 belowisnt any, wouldnt apply) Err as this is a sales of goods contract then i think you will find the sales of goods act actually covers such contracts, saying otherwise is like saying a CCA does not cover a credit agreement. Pure ignorance on your part peter, is all i can say.

37 Buyer’s liability for not taking delivery of goods.
(1)When the seller is ready and willing to deliver the goods, and requests the buyer to take delivery, and the buyer does not within a reasonable time after such request take delivery of the goods, he is liable to the seller for any loss occasioned by his neglect or refusal to take delivery, and also for a reasonable charge for the care and custody of the goods.

And would this amount to the full cost of the goods? Not in your life - Read the part above, it cleary states the following "nd the buyer does not within a reasonable time after such request take delivery of the goods, he is liable to the seller for any loss occasioned by his neglect or refusal to take delivery" So no peter the buyer is liable to cover the full loss the seller incurs including the total value of the goods.

(2)Nothing in this section affects the rights of the seller where the neglect or refusal of the buyer to take delivery amounts to a repudiation of the contract.

You cannot repudiate a contract if you have already paid the bill. Yes you can, paying for goods is 1 of many terms of a contract, a sales of goods contract include payment terms, delievery terms and many other terms depending on the specifics of a sale. Point here is even if they had not paid they would have still been liabel for any costs incurred by the seller when they failed to collect.

50 Damages for non-acceptance.

(1)Where the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to accept and pay for the goods, the seller may maintain an action against him for damages for non-acceptance. Highlighting certain words in legislation peter is of no benefit the word of law is not ment to be taken word by word but by open interpritation based on the facts of each case, so your above point "And pay for" is irrelevant as the part where it says neglects or refuses to accept is all that is relevant here as they clear refused to accept the goods by neglecting to collect them, the fact they had paid for the goods is irrelevant here.

(2)The measure of damages is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the buyer’s breach of contract.

(3)Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time or times when the goods ought to have been accepted or (if no time was fixed for acceptance) at the time of the refusal to accept.

This would tend to support the buyers case , the market value of the suite after being out in the rain being very iittle i shoud imagine - Not at all, after all if the buyer had not breached the contract by neglecting to collect the goods, then the goods value would not have deminished, now would it.

Note the above applies even when the buyer is under the contract suppose to collect the goods, and the above also applies for when the goods are paid or unpaid. Section 37 and 50 makes its clear the OP is within her rights to refuse a refund and keep the money to cover her costs, financial loss on the value of the goods.

I hope this information helps clarify things.
Hope my additions clarify things

I oubt wenther the sale of goods act would apply and if it did u think it would be on the side of the buyer.

Anyway looks like the OP has gotten away with it so i suppose that alls well.

Peter

Sorry peter, but your clutching at straws here, your changing the facts purely to support your own argument. As i said peter i have come across issues like this myself since i own a wholesale company, have you ever worked in sales or retail, do you no the laws regarding sales of goods and services and how they apply other than from reading them online. No i don't think you do peter as is evident in your posts. Not a single claim made by a buyer against me has ever been been successful, why because the sales of goods act was on my side just like it is on the OP's side. You can interpretate it however you like to suit your arguement peter, but it doesnt change the fact that the sales of goods act protects the seller in section 37 and 50, as neither section is ment for protecting the buyer.

To say the sales of goods act that govens contracts involving sales of goods and service does not apply is ludicrous peter, and am shocked to see you actully say such a thing.

But i agree, it looks like the OP has nothing to worry about now.

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Exactly and in this case the cost was equal to the total value of the goods.



Sorry peter, but your clutching at straws here, your changing the facts purely to support your own argument. As i said peter i have come across issues like this myself since i own a wholesale company, have you ever worked in sales or retail, do you no the laws regarding sales of goods and services and how they apply other than from reading them online. No i don't think you do peter as is evident in your posts. Not a single claim made by a buyer against me has ever been been successful, why because the sales of goods act was on my side just like it is on the OP's side. You can interpretate it however you like to suit your arguement peter, but it doesnt change the fact that the sales of goods act protects the seller in section 37 and 50, as neither section is ment for protecting the buyer.

To say the sales of goods act that govens contracts involving sales of goods and service does not apply is ludicrous peter, and am shocked to see you actully say such a thing.

But i agree, it looks like the OP has nothing to worry about now.

No i dont think i am, the facts are that the buyer paid up and the goods were not available for collection. The rest is arguable.

I m sure that the buyere would come up with just as much of a plausable story in court, so the facts stated would drive the outcome, money was spent goods were not recieved. I am not calling anyone a liar here just stating the facts as they would be seen by a court.

That simple really. In you experianbce have the buyers actually parted with their hard earned? Doubt it.
Peter

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Oh ERR

and the sale of goods act does not apply to private sales.

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7...-of-goods-act/

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

No i dont think i am, the facts are that the buyer paid up and the goods were not available for collection. The rest is arguable.

I m sure that the buyere would come up with just as much of a plausable story in court, so the facts stated would drive the outcome, money was spent goods were not recieved. I am not calling anyone a liar here just stating the facts as they would be seen by a court.

That simple really. In you experianbce have the buyers actually parted with their hard earned? Doubt it.
Peter

What the hell, who said the goods were not available for collection, they had an agreed collection date under contract, the buyer failed to collect the goods on the agreed date despite the goods being avaliable on the agreed contractual collection date.

It wouldn't matter what reason the buyer had for failing to collect, as the sales of goods act limits the court to awarding damages for financial loss to the seller for the buyers breach of contract and/or neglect to pick up the goods.

Yes if the buyer had actually taken the time to inform seller that they will not be able to collect on agreed date, then fair enough they could have arranged a more convient day for the buyer to collect. But the facts are the buyer did not do that, they did not respond to the sellers text and phone calls regarding collection of the goods. It was only when they found out she had given the goods away that the buyer demanded a refund.

No court in the land would support the buyers claim and would simply laugh the buyer out of court. Basically was the buyers actions and failuer to communicate with the seller reasonable behaviour, no it was not and it resulted in the seller suffering a loss equal to the value of the goods and under the sales of goods act the seller is entitled to the full value of the goods as damages for the buyer refusal to collect the goods.

Oh and in my experience yes they did part with their hard earnt cash as we operate a payment up front policy for all purchases made by non account customers and members of the public. For example if i order in specially a product that costs me £30 and sells at £60 (not including VAT by the way) and they pay upfront, i am entitled to keep £30 to cover my cost and the difference between the cost price and sales price as their failure to collect the item has not only left me £30 out of pocket but also prejudices me financial from the lost of profit (£30) as a result of the buyers breach of contract especially if its an item am not likely to sell anytime soon. And also i would be also entitled to persue them additional costs for having to store the item in stock when i would not normally do so.

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Relevant sections of the Sales of Goods act 1979 belowisnt any, wouldnt apply) Err as this is a sales of goods contract then i think you will find the sales of goods act actually covers such contracts, saying otherwise is like saying a CCA does not cover a credit agreement. Pure ignorance on your part peter, is all i can say.

The cca does not cover all credit agreements only commercial ones and certainly not exempt ones.


JUst thought i would remind you of this, does the sale of goods act apply then, i applogise for my ignorance in the matter.
NOT as the kids say.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

What the hell, who said the goods were not available for collection, they had an agreed collection date under contract, the buyer failed to collect the goods on the agreed date despite the goods being avaliable on the agreed contractual collection date.

Really could you show e the proof of the details of the arrangement

It wouldn't matter what reason the buyer had for failing to collect, as the sales of goods act limits the court to awarding damages for financial loss to the seller for the buyers breach of contract and/or neglect to pick up the goods.

SALES OF GOODS ACT DOES NOT APPLY you really are showing your ignorane here

Yes if the buyer had actually taken the time to inform seller that they will not be able to collect on agreed date, then fair enough they could have arranged a more convient day for the buyer to collect. But the facts are the buyer did not do that, they did not respond to the sellers text and phone calls regarding collection of the goods. It was only when they found out she had given the goods away that the buyer demanded a refund.

No court in the land would support the buyers claim and would simply laugh the buyer out of court. Basically was the buyers actions and failuer to communicate with the seller reasonable behaviour, no it was not and it resulted in the seller suffering a loss equal to the value of the goods and under the sales of goods act the seller is entitled to the full value of the goods as damages for the buyer refusal to collect the goods.

Yes the terrioble loss of having to spend all that money i exchage for nothing

Oh and in my experience yes they did part with their hard earnt cash as we operate a payment up front policy for all purchases made by non account customers and members of the public. For example if i order in specially a product that costs me £30 and sells at £60 (not including VAT by the way) and they pay upfront, i am entitled to keep £30 to cover my cost and the difference between the cost price and sales price as their failure to collect the item has not only left me £30 out of pocket but also prejudices me financial from the lost of profit (£30) as a result of the buyers breach of contract epespecially if its an item am not likely to sell anytime soon. And also i would be also entitled to persue them additional costs for having to store the item in stock when i would not normally do so.

This wo9uld cover your loses do you not see the difference

Courts are only concered with facts and actual loss, the buyer paid and got nothing in return the rest is just rhetoric.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Oh ERR

and the sale of goods act does not apply to private sales.

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A7...-of-goods-act/

Peter

And where does it say that it does not apply Hmmmmm. Oh it applies to second hand goods "Check" and doorstep sales "Check" - No where on the site you linked to does it say it doesn't apply.

Lets look at the act itself shall we:

(1)A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.


(2)There may be a contract of sale between one part owner and another.


(3)A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.


(4)Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer the contract is called a sale.


(5)Where under a contract of sale the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition later to be fulfilled the contract is called an agreement to sell.


(6)An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.


No where in the act does it say that it does not apply to private sales, infact section 2 subsection 1 above says "sale of goods by which the sellertransfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price." Therefore making it clear it applies to all sales where property is transferred for money.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Courts are only concered with facts and actual loss, the buyer paid and got nothing in return the rest is just rhetoric.

Peter

Peter your digging yourself a hole, the courts won't care if the buyer paid or not and if they lost their money. All the court will care about will be the loss of value of the goods the seller incurred and is entitled to claim from the buyer under the sales of goods act as a result of the buyers failure to collect the goods as they had agreed to under the contract.

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Not aguing this, it is pathetic

The act regualted commertial sales look up the word commertial like the cca regulates commertial lending

Never bought anything sold as seen, you think you are covered by the SOGA.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Originally Posted by teaboy2
What the hell, who said the goods were not available for collection, they had an agreed collection date under contract, the buyer failed to collect the goods on the agreed date despite the goods being avaliable on the agreed contractual collection date.

Really could you show e the proof of the details of the arrangement - Its all in the OP's post. I know your keeping up a facade based on the buyers possible side of the story. But seriously peter is their really any need, its just led to you trolling this thread supporting the buyers side when their side is completely unknown (other than from what the seller has said) and would be irrelevent since the Seller is supported by the Sales of goods act.

It wouldn't matter what reason the buyer had for failing to collect, as the sales of goods act limits the court to awarding damages for financial loss to the seller for the buyers breach of contract and/or neglect to pick up the goods.

SALES OF GOODS ACT DOES NOT APPLY you really are showing your ignorane here - It applies to all sales where the transfer of property of goods is transfered for money or consideration of money i.e. a price. It is you that is ignorant of this.

Yes if the buyer had actually taken the time to inform seller that they will not be able to collect on agreed date, then fair enough they could have arranged a more convient day for the buyer to collect. But the facts are the buyer did not do that, they did not respond to the sellers text and phone calls regarding collection of the goods. It was only when they found out she had given the goods away that the buyer demanded a refund.

No court in the land would support the buyers claim and would simply laugh the buyer out of court. Basically was the buyers actions and failuer to communicate with the seller reasonable behaviour, no it was not and it resulted in the seller suffering a loss equal to the value of the goods and under the sales of goods act the seller is entitled to the full value of the goods as damages for the buyer refusal to collect the goods.

Yes the terrioble loss of having to spend all that money i exchage for nothing - But if the buyer had fulfilled their part of the contract and had collect the goods then neither the buyer of seller would have suffered a loss now would they. Ultimately the buyer a result of failing to collect the goods resulted in the seller being at a finanical loss.

Oh and in my experience yes they did part with their hard earnt cash as we operate a payment up front policy for all purchases made by non account customers and members of the public. For example if i order in specially a product that costs me £30 and sells at £60 (not including VAT by the way) and they pay upfront, i am entitled to keep £30 to cover my cost and the difference between the cost price and sales price as their failure to collect the item has not only left me £30 out of pocket but also prejudices me financial from the lost of profit (£30) as a result of the buyers breach of contract epespecially if its an item am not likely to sell anytime soon. And also i would be also entitled to persue them additional costs for having to store the item in stock when i would not normally do so.

This wo9uld cover your loses do you not see the difference - There is no difference, the seller lost value on the goods as a result of the buyer failing to collect the goods. As such the seller is entitled to claim the full value of the goods (Sale price) plus additional cost for storage etc.

Enough peter, its not getting you anywhere. Regardless whether keeping up a facade as to the buyers story or assumed rights or not, its now become childish and has not helped the OP. And in the event your simply keeping up the arguement purely because you don't agree with me, then all i can say is grow up. I know a hell off a lot more about laws and contracts that govern sales of goods, i deal in them on a daily basis afterall.

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Not aguing this, it is pathetic

The act regualted commertial sales look up the word commertial like the cca regulates commertial lending

Never bought anything sold as seen, you think you are covered by the SOGA.

Peter

What a load of crap Pete. No where does the act say it only applies to commercial sales. Again i refer you to what it says in Section 2 subsection one "A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price."

I suggest you read the full legislation before making anymore comments on the matter.

Until then i will not continue this stupid arguement with you just because you happen to not like being wrong.

[Guest]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

HI
Still worying about this

"saying otherwise is like saying a CCA does not cover a credit agreement. Pure ignorance on your part peter, is all i can say."

Only i borrowd a tenner from my wife last month, never mind i can challenge the DN, I am sure she doesnt know how to format one.

Peter






------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

And in the event your simply keeping up the arguement purely because you don't agree with me, then all i can say is grow up. I know a hell off a lot more about laws and contracts that govern sales of goods, i deal in them on a daily basis afterall.

Yes arguing because i dont agree with you.
Something we can agree on.

As for your qualification because you work with selling goods, well who doesnt, wont be taking any advice from the girl from Marks either.

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Now your just being childish Peter. Am sure you are more then aware that private borrowing of sums of money are exempt from CCA, so long no interest is charged. I.e. Borrowed a Tenner And only have to pay back a Tenner. Where if your wife were to charge interest on top of the money she lent you (with expection for interest claimed as part of a court claim for the money), her doing so would make her a loan shark, if she does not have a Credit license.

Anyway, to back up my point that the sales of goods act also applies to private sales - Look at section 12. It is only Section 14 that is limited to where goods are sold in course of business.

[Celestine]

Re: Private sale gone so wrong

Ok that's ENOUGH

I don't want to close the thread in case Haggis needs further help, (i.e. she has further contact from buyer); in which case this debate could be purposeful.

In the meantime, this debate is very unhelpful.

Agree to disagree.

Any further 'debate' posts will be removed.

THANKS