Tweet
Online Item from CEX Arrived Empty - Court Claim worth pursuing now?
Hello,
In December last year I purchased an item online from
CeX, item was delivered by royal mail and due to the delivery situation at the time it was contactless, I did not have much time to inspect the package.
When I took it in, it did feel rather light but I let it be. On inspecting closely it looked to be partially tampered with, loose tape/one side of the box pried open etc. Tried to deal with the merchant and an Amex chargeback to no success.
I contacted Citizens Advice and they mentioned something around the sales of goods act, nothing terribly specific that I can recall. I hastily opened a court claim this year and they responded as below:
CeX (the Defendant) herein states as follows : 1. CeX Ltd has a retail and online presence dealing in the buying, selling and exchange of second hand electronic products. 2. On 14th December 2021, the Claimant ordered a [Graphics Cards] bearing serial number “” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Graphic Card’) amounting to £460 via online order having number ””, from the Defendant. The item was delivered on 23rd December 2021 via Royal Mail ‘Special Delivery Guaranteed 1pm’ bearing tracking number ””. As per the tracking details on the Royal Mail website, the delivery receipt was duly signed by the receiver, that is, the Claimant in this case. We are attaching the evidence of the accepted delivery and marking it as ‘Exhibit A’. 3. However, on 23rd December 2021, the Claimant contacted Defendant reporting that there has been a tampering with the order box received and that the Graphic card was missing in it. 4. The Defendant has checked internally and has CCTV footage to confirm that the Graphic card was added to the delivery package sent which was properly sealed up. The CCTV footage is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit B’. 5.1 Further, the Defendant also followed up with the Royal Mail who had delivered the package to know about the physical condition of the package during delivery, its contents and the refund. The Defendant was informed that had the package been opened/ damaged then the items especially sent using the Special Delivery would have been accompanied by the Royal Mail apology bag which was not the situation in this case. Also, their Delivery Officer Manager did not seem to identify any such damaged/tampered package. Hence, due to the lack of any substantive evidence the claim was rejected by Royal Mail. The copy of the communication of the Defendant and the Royal Mail is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit C’. 5.2 Further, the mention of the protocol of the Royal Mail placing the damaged mail in a Royal Mail bag in case of damaged delivery is also mentioned by the Royal Mail in their Terms and Conditions on their website as follows: https://bit.ly/38eVvOP The Defendant is also attaching the screenshot of the relevant paragraph mentioned by Royal Mail on their website which is marked herewith as ‘Exhibit D’. 6. Further, the Claimant had tried to raise a chargeback which was rejected by American Express on 19th January 2022 on the basis of the evidence provided by the Defendant. This further proves that the Defendant had sent across an untampered package with the correct contents in it. The copy of the dispute details filed with American Express which was defended by the Defendant is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit E’. 7. Further, although the Claimant has provided the evidence in the form of images to show the box being tampered with, it is not conclusive evidence as it fails to establish the fact as whether the box was damaged prior or after the receipt of the package by the Claimant, and its contents. The images shared by the Claimant are attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit F’. 8. Also, any prudent person would not have accepted the package if the package was clearly visible to have been tampered with. The act of the Claimant accepting the alleged package negates the fact that the package was delivered to him in a damaged condition and/or with the item missing. The accepted delivery receipt of Royal Mail which is signed by the customer is already attached above as ‘Exhibit A’. 9. Thus, on the basis of the above facts, the Defendant had refused the refund to the Claimant via email dated 10th February 2022. 10. Further, as per Sec 17 - Rule 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that : (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer as the parties intend it to be transferred (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. 18. Unless a different intention appears, the following are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. Rule 4- When goods are delivered to the buyer on sale or return or other similar terms the property in the goods passes to the buyer : - (a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction ; Further as per Sec 20.-(1) Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the property in them is transferred to the buyer, but when the property in them is transferred to the buyer the goods are at the buyer's risk whether delivery has been made or not. Thus, a joint reading of the above sections proves that the act of the Claimant in accepting the delivery of the alleged damaged package signified his acceptance of the package and its contents due to which the property passed on to him and the Defendant is in no way liable for any alleged damage or alleged missing contents. 10. Thus, going by the above facts and law, the Defendant requests that the claim of the Claimant be dismissed.
So is this worth pursuing? Do I have any standing? It seems they have their case in order and I may not have much of a fight. Incredibly frustrating to call this a loss of £460, if I have to..
In December last year I purchased an item online from
CeX, item was delivered by royal mail and due to the delivery situation at the time it was contactless, I did not have much time to inspect the package.
When I took it in, it did feel rather light but I let it be. On inspecting closely it looked to be partially tampered with, loose tape/one side of the box pried open etc. Tried to deal with the merchant and an Amex chargeback to no success.
I contacted Citizens Advice and they mentioned something around the sales of goods act, nothing terribly specific that I can recall. I hastily opened a court claim this year and they responded as below:
CeX (the Defendant) herein states as follows : 1. CeX Ltd has a retail and online presence dealing in the buying, selling and exchange of second hand electronic products. 2. On 14th December 2021, the Claimant ordered a [Graphics Cards] bearing serial number “” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Graphic Card’) amounting to £460 via online order having number ””, from the Defendant. The item was delivered on 23rd December 2021 via Royal Mail ‘Special Delivery Guaranteed 1pm’ bearing tracking number ””. As per the tracking details on the Royal Mail website, the delivery receipt was duly signed by the receiver, that is, the Claimant in this case. We are attaching the evidence of the accepted delivery and marking it as ‘Exhibit A’. 3. However, on 23rd December 2021, the Claimant contacted Defendant reporting that there has been a tampering with the order box received and that the Graphic card was missing in it. 4. The Defendant has checked internally and has CCTV footage to confirm that the Graphic card was added to the delivery package sent which was properly sealed up. The CCTV footage is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit B’. 5.1 Further, the Defendant also followed up with the Royal Mail who had delivered the package to know about the physical condition of the package during delivery, its contents and the refund. The Defendant was informed that had the package been opened/ damaged then the items especially sent using the Special Delivery would have been accompanied by the Royal Mail apology bag which was not the situation in this case. Also, their Delivery Officer Manager did not seem to identify any such damaged/tampered package. Hence, due to the lack of any substantive evidence the claim was rejected by Royal Mail. The copy of the communication of the Defendant and the Royal Mail is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit C’. 5.2 Further, the mention of the protocol of the Royal Mail placing the damaged mail in a Royal Mail bag in case of damaged delivery is also mentioned by the Royal Mail in their Terms and Conditions on their website as follows: https://bit.ly/38eVvOP The Defendant is also attaching the screenshot of the relevant paragraph mentioned by Royal Mail on their website which is marked herewith as ‘Exhibit D’. 6. Further, the Claimant had tried to raise a chargeback which was rejected by American Express on 19th January 2022 on the basis of the evidence provided by the Defendant. This further proves that the Defendant had sent across an untampered package with the correct contents in it. The copy of the dispute details filed with American Express which was defended by the Defendant is attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit E’. 7. Further, although the Claimant has provided the evidence in the form of images to show the box being tampered with, it is not conclusive evidence as it fails to establish the fact as whether the box was damaged prior or after the receipt of the package by the Claimant, and its contents. The images shared by the Claimant are attached herewith and marked as ‘Exhibit F’. 8. Also, any prudent person would not have accepted the package if the package was clearly visible to have been tampered with. The act of the Claimant accepting the alleged package negates the fact that the package was delivered to him in a damaged condition and/or with the item missing. The accepted delivery receipt of Royal Mail which is signed by the customer is already attached above as ‘Exhibit A’. 9. Thus, on the basis of the above facts, the Defendant had refused the refund to the Claimant via email dated 10th February 2022. 10. Further, as per Sec 17 - Rule 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that : (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer as the parties intend it to be transferred (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. 18. Unless a different intention appears, the following are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. Rule 4- When goods are delivered to the buyer on sale or return or other similar terms the property in the goods passes to the buyer : - (a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction ; Further as per Sec 20.-(1) Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the property in them is transferred to the buyer, but when the property in them is transferred to the buyer the goods are at the buyer's risk whether delivery has been made or not. Thus, a joint reading of the above sections proves that the act of the Claimant in accepting the delivery of the alleged damaged package signified his acceptance of the package and its contents due to which the property passed on to him and the Defendant is in no way liable for any alleged damage or alleged missing contents. 10. Thus, going by the above facts and law, the Defendant requests that the claim of the Claimant be dismissed.
So is this worth pursuing? Do I have any standing? It seems they have their case in order and I may not have much of a fight. Incredibly frustrating to call this a loss of £460, if I have to..
Comment