|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 3, 2022 16:43:56 GMT
Baron you have had this explained to you by a number of different people and by the expert on the radio. If you want to believe you know better that's fine of course but if you want to understand the reality of the law then perhaps you need to listen a little. In the case you mention, it seems a consumer ordered some goods from a supplier and paid them some money. We don't know what payment method she used. A bank Debit card as already stated. The supplier failed financially after the goods were placed into the hands of a courier but before they were delivered. The legal situation depends on the terms of the contract between the buyer and the seller and specifically when title is defined under that contract as passing. It is highly likely that the contract will specify that title only passes to the buyer on delivery to her premises. In that situation she, having paid money to the supplier becomes an unsecured creditor of the supplier. I can't see that being the case. It's already under the control of a separate company, and her business was with the supplier and she has completed her terms. The courier only holds a contract with the supplier. It's as if the courier has been paid just to perform that service. Her claim would not be their breach of delivery contract, it is that they have control of someone goods and now no longer with their permission and if they do not make them available to the owner it is theft. Look at it the other way. If there was a period of time the supplier was a bank and held money from customers without an exchange they would have to be licenced as a financial institution whereupon a huge stack of regulations come into play to make other people's money secure. You entrust any money to a bank as a consumer and you are protected upto a limit. There will be regulations pertaining to keeping the person informed as well. It's basically bullshit and they have nicked it. If she paid the supplier by credit (or in most cases debit) card, she will have a claim against her credit card company If she paid the supplier by bank transfer, she has no claim of anyone else apart from hoping the administrator/liquidator of the supplier realises sufficient funds to pay her some of all of her money back from the suppliers net assets. Honestly that is unlikely. The relationship between the supplier and the courier is irrelevant to the buyer. It is very unlikely but just about possible that the contract between the buyer and the seller specified that title passes to the buyer when the goods leave the sellers factory. In that unlikely scenario the courier company would be acting on behalf of the buyer (even if arranged for by the seller) and hence would be obliged to hand over her goods on demand. this scenario though is highly unlikely. Given that the buyer apparently asked a legal expert on the BBC and he had time to check, i is likely that he asked for the contract and confirmed she had no title over the goods. There was no evidence the expert did anything of the sort. You can tell because he would either reference the contract etc or the laws pertaining to it. Instead he gabled on about something the government was going to do and didn't. He sounded like a complete tosspot or else i would have suspected there were a reason for it. These types do not give reasons. he said "It's complicated". Everything is complicated to a fuckwit, but in real life we are all familiar with the basic laws of trade. They are etched into our culture: you pay for it -> It is yours. Policeman - did you pay for that- No - well you're nicked sunshine. Followed by OK officer fair cop. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 3, 2022 16:49:49 GMT
If she paid by debit card and its a UK bank provider, she should be able to claim from the banks chargeback scheme.
Mate you have been explained what the law is, if you don't believe it and know the buyer, go get a solicitor to explain it to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 3, 2022 17:49:48 GMT
If she paid by debit card and its a UK bank provider, she should be able to claim from the banks chargeback scheme. Mate you have been explained what the law is, if you don't believe it and know the buyer, go get a solicitor to explain it to you. Chargeback is not a right where credit card refunds are because they insure it.
The courier can not legally nick your goods. It just goes against common sense too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2022 18:38:57 GMT
I always use a credit card for online shopping. That way my contract is with the card company, and not the seller of goods or services… Spot on. Just prior to Covid taking hold we booked a holiday in Greece using a credit card. When the holiday company cancelled they said it was owing to circumstances beyond their control. Their own holiday guarantee stated that if for any reason the holiday was cancelled, a full refund would be given, but they reneged on that. I contacted the card issuer who as part of the process must have prodded the holiday company and they suddenly refunded the cash. If they had not done so, the credit card company would have done so. I think someone else posted in the thread about credit cards, and the recourse available, but I would reiterate that use of a credit card for any purchase is wise, especially online. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 3, 2022 19:32:54 GMT
I always use a credit card for online shopping. That way my contract is with the card company, and not the seller of goods or services… Spot on. Just prior to Covid taking hold we booked a holiday in Greece using a credit card. When the holiday company cancelled they said it was owing to circumstances beyond their control. Their own holiday guarantee stated that if for any reason the holiday was cancelled, a full refund would be given, but they reneged on that. I contacted the card issuer who as part of the process must have prodded the holiday company and they suddenly refunded the cash. If they had not done so, the credit card company would have done so. I think someone else posted in the thread about credit cards, and the recourse available, but I would reiterate that use of a credit card for any purchase is wise, especially online. I did manage to get a cashback on visa but it was for a computer glitch where the payment went through twice and the firm ignoring me was Federal Express. The normal procedure with it is they will not intervene unless you have not got a response from the firm, but then that was just £23 and this is £500. The amount counts. It's like the post, for small sums they would rather settle it. It's more so they look like a nice firm than they have to. I think the fact the firm is now in administration might complicate that route and besides they did not do anything wrong, it was a third party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2022 21:31:39 GMT
The amount I was claiming was £1,750, Baron. The amount does not count. If a service or product is ordered and not delivered, the credit card company will refund the money. Obviously it is necessary to show that the company have refused, or declined a refund.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 3, 2022 21:32:23 GMT
I've just had a think about this and the liens you say are in their contracts would be likely used in cases where costs rack up for storage. This is particularly important when importing goods and the issue of the goods getting stored by customs. It can be extremely expensive if you cock it up, and with some contracts you don't sign all the work over to the courier and also for other reasons where you are unreasonable in your part agreed that you should make the goods deliverable. Someone might otherwise be a complete awkward bastard and cause the firm to make repeated unsuccessful deliveries whereupon it will eventually sit in their warehouse until the customer has a change of heart, but at some point the storage costs are going to affect the firm and they want the right to dispose of it. We are therefore clutching at straws and I think if this went before a judge she would get her money. I expect the firm is so arrogant that it likes to ignore litigation too. I know someone who took Sky to court for having 100 stupid conversations on the phone with them about sorting a problem out. He was paid five grand for that work (double with inflation). The firm then wrote to him with a £2500 cheque saying acceptance nullifies your claim and he then sent it back and a £5000 one arrived. These are the kind of bastards one is typically dealing with - as per try anything to rip you/no regard for the law thanks to the misleading advice of experts. I've shown you a standard contract for hauliers, and asked you for a source indicating a route for defeating the lien- your reply makes no sense.
Anyway, I have taken the trouble to listen to the programme and find the supplier was Made dot com. The relevant part of the sale contract follows:
8. RISK AND OWNERSHIP
8.1 Ownership of the Products will pass to you on delivery, provided that we have received full payment of all sums due in respect of the Products, including delivery charges.
8.2 The Products will be your responsibility from the time that you (or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by you) take physical possession of the Products.
This means the customer will rank as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency for her £500, and the haulier's lien cannot be challenged by the customer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 3, 2022 22:54:52 GMT
I've just had a think about this and the liens you say are in their contracts would be likely used in cases where costs rack up for storage. This is particularly important when importing goods and the issue of the goods getting stored by customs. It can be extremely expensive if you cock it up, and with some contracts you don't sign all the work over to the courier and also for other reasons where you are unreasonable in your part agreed that you should make the goods deliverable. Someone might otherwise be a complete awkward bastard and cause the firm to make repeated unsuccessful deliveries whereupon it will eventually sit in their warehouse until the customer has a change of heart, but at some point the storage costs are going to affect the firm and they want the right to dispose of it. We are therefore clutching at straws and I think if this went before a judge she would get her money. I expect the firm is so arrogant that it likes to ignore litigation too. I know someone who took Sky to court for having 100 stupid conversations on the phone with them about sorting a problem out. He was paid five grand for that work (double with inflation). The firm then wrote to him with a £2500 cheque saying acceptance nullifies your claim and he then sent it back and a £5000 one arrived. These are the kind of bastards one is typically dealing with - as per try anything to rip you/no regard for the law thanks to the misleading advice of experts. I've shown you a standard contract for hauliers, and asked you for a source indicating a route for defeating the lien- your reply makes no sense.
Anyway, I have taken the trouble to listen to the programme and find the supplier was Made dot com. The relevant part of the sale contract follows:
8. RISK AND OWNERSHIP
8.1 Ownership of the Products will pass to you on delivery, provided that we have received full payment of all sums due in respect of the Products, including delivery charges.
8.2 The Products will be your responsibility from the time that you (or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by you) take physical possession of the Products.
This means the customer will rank as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency for her £500, and the haulier's lien cannot be challenged by the customer.
Oh well if you agree to that then you are rather buggered. Alibaba does it on payment of funds.
hmm, I'm just thinking what I do and although I hate credit cards I will sometimes use Ebay which guarantees it but if I use a separate firm I can often pay by paypal which also guarantees it and if it is more than a few quid I would read the contract. To agree to the courier stealing your 500 quid shelving unit I would tell the firm to fuck off. It may well be the standard contract of the haulage industry but well they want it all their own way, bastards. I've seen contracts for some websites where they can fine you loads of money for any reason they see fit to kind of thing. Keep well away!
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 4, 2022 6:07:53 GMT
Oh well if you agree to that then you are rather buggered.
Which, in a nutshell, was the 'stupid bastard legal advice on R4'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 4, 2022 10:16:20 GMT
Oh well if you agree to that then you are rather buggered.
Which, in a nutshell, was the 'stupid bastard legal advice on R4'.
You and he assumes that was the contract, and that is why he is a stupid bastard.
So every time the courier talks about delivering your package then that's a lie, it is the package of the firm. It does not surprise me in the least that in this country there will be dodgy contracts but he did not even mention contract. He was as much help as a standard cunt from this country who tells you nothing. She is none-the-wiser either. The first advice would be to read the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 4, 2022 10:25:07 GMT
Baron
Try to think about this a little more widely and calmly.
If you purchase goods from say Amazon and they do not arrive, you would presumably want to be able to call Amazon and demand that they either send you a new one or your money back.
You presumably do not want Amazon to say "oh no, we passed the goods to Joe Bloggs - a self employed delivery driver. Not our problem. Go try to get your money back from him" Even if you did you would struggle as you have no contract with Joe Bloggs so unless you can prove negligence or theft you would be screwed.
That is why it is in the consumers interests for the contract to be written that ownership to you only passes on delivery.
Very occasionally that has negative consequences as in this rare instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 4, 2022 10:36:08 GMT
Baron Try to think about this a little more widely and calmly. If you purchase goods from say Amazon and they do not arrive, you would presumably want to be able to call Amazon and demand that they either send you a new one or your money back. You presumably do not want Amazon to say "oh no, we passed the goods to Joe Bloggs - a self employed delivery driver. Not our problem. Go try to get your money back from him" Even if you did you would struggle as you have no contract with Joe Bloggs so unless you can prove negligence or theft you would be screwed. That is why it is in the consumers interests for the contract to be written that ownership to you only passes on delivery. Very occasionally that has negative consequences as in this rare instance. You are wrong. It works fine if you pay for a firm to subcontract another firm to do your work. With this position there is a time gap where they have your money and you don't have your goods. With Alibaba that can not happen, and it is one reason I prefer Chinese firms because they are straight dealers and the contract is decent and easy to understand. In the UK any contract generally speaking tries to stuff you. When you get a job as well they will load the contract with loads of shit. They are sneaky bastards like that and this fake expert told her a lie. He could not know what the contract was. I've had this many times with UK cunts. They issue these contracts for your to sign, but you are not expected to read them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 4, 2022 11:16:26 GMT
Baron Try to think about this a little more widely and calmly. If you purchase goods from say Amazon and they do not arrive, you would presumably want to be able to call Amazon and demand that they either send you a new one or your money back. You presumably do not want Amazon to say "oh no, we passed the goods to Joe Bloggs - a self employed delivery driver. Not our problem. Go try to get your money back from him" Even if you did you would struggle as you have no contract with Joe Bloggs so unless you can prove negligence or theft you would be screwed. That is why it is in the consumers interests for the contract to be written that ownership to you only passes on delivery. Very occasionally that has negative consequences as in this rare instance. I think the risks you mention are already covered in the Consumer Rights Act which provides that risk in the property only passes on delivery, irrespective of ownership. The Law commission has proposed a change in the law to provide that title passes with payment, but risk remains with the supplier. |
|
