Right of a business to cancel a transaction

[rxe]

I’ll try and keep this simple. It’s me,not a friend, and there is no back story on it. I’m not going to reveal the name of the company involved.

I ordered a part for a car from a supplier. This particular part has become fairly scarce recently and the price has risen from about £75 a year ago to £150 a month or so ago. I need one, and I found one for sale for £200. Ouch, but I need one, they had it, I bought it. Paid through PayPal, all good.

The company has refunded my money, and cancelled the transaction. Oh well, they probably didn’t have one. I look on their site, and they still have one - but it now costs £300. This feel like they are taking the piss, which should be discouraged. I’m not really complaining about the £300 price, more the bait and switch tactics they are using.

Any laws they are breaking here? Or is this behaviour acceptable according to our current consumer regulations?

[sunbeam alpine]

Can't advise on the legal aspects, but I've had experience of this in the past. Are they the only possible supplier, or are the alternative suppliers already more expensive?

It's very rare that there's only one supplier for parts - unless the car's an Alfa 155 Q4

[pincher]

Isn’t the ordering part just an invitation to create a transaction (or somesuch)? i.e. the other party has no obligation to accept*

It sucks but I don’t think there is a great deal you can do about it?

Edit *Happens every so often when Argos or Curryrs etc advertise a billion inch OLED tv for a tenner and everyone piles in hoping they will either get a raving bargain or make a killing selling it on for something close to proper price.

[alock]

I had that happen with some whisky. They decided to put the price up after I ordered it and had paid for delivery

[BertBert]

pincher said:

Isn’t the ordering part just an invitation to create a transaction (or somesuch)? i.e. the other party has no obligation to accept*

It sucks but I don’t think there is a great deal you can do about it?

Edit *Happens every so often when Argos or Curryrs etc advertise a billion inch OLED tv for a tenner and everyone piles in hoping they will either get a raving bargain or make a killing selling it on for something close to proper price.

Indeed, but that's not what the OP is describing as he paid for the item. So it's not just an offer.
In the second case, they often get away with it with a general E&OE.
As to the OP, it's wrong, but in practice not much you can do about I suspect.
Bert

[IJWS15]

If it was ordered online did you use a credit card to pay?

It amazes me that there are still people around who don't understand the benefit of doing this!

If you want to go after the company yourself what do their terms of business say? The terms will be somewhere on their website.

[Red Devil]

rxe said:

I’ll try and keep this simple. It’s me,not a friend, and there is no back story on it. I’m not going to reveal the name of the company involved.

I ordered a part for a car from a supplier. This particular part has become fairly scarce recently and the price has risen from about £75 a year ago to £150 a month or so ago. I need one, and I found one for sale for £200. Ouch, but I need one, they had it, I bought it. Paid through PayPal, all good.

The company has refunded my money, and cancelled the transaction. Oh well, they probably didn’t have one. I look on their site, and they still have one - but it now costs £300. This feel like they are taking the piss, which should be discouraged. I’m not really complaining about the £300 price, more the bait and switch tactics they are using.

Any laws they are breaking here? Or is this behaviour acceptable according to our current consumer regulations?

The supplier has clearly refused to perform/renounced the contract. See 'A summary' at the end of this link - https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal...
Your problem is what actual loss have you incurred as a result? The return of your money puts you in the same position as you were before the contract was formed.
The supplier's morals may be questionable but the law is not concerned with those.

[oyster]

Red Devil said:

rxe said:

I’ll try and keep this simple. It’s me,not a friend, and there is no back story on it. I’m not going to reveal the name of the company involved.

I ordered a part for a car from a supplier. This particular part has become fairly scarce recently and the price has risen from about £75 a year ago to £150 a month or so ago. I need one, and I found one for sale for £200. Ouch, but I need one, they had it, I bought it. Paid through PayPal, all good.

The company has refunded my money, and cancelled the transaction. Oh well, they probably didn’t have one. I look on their site, and they still have one - but it now costs £300. This feel like they are taking the piss, which should be discouraged. I’m not really complaining about the £300 price, more the bait and switch tactics they are using.

Any laws they are breaking here? Or is this behaviour acceptable according to our current consumer regulations?

The supplier has clearly refused to perform/renounced the contract. See 'A summary' at the end of this link - https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal...
Your problem is what actual loss have you incurred as a result? The return of your money puts you in the same position as you were before the contract was formed.
The supplier's morals may be questionable but the law is not concerned with those.

Isn't the actual loss £100 if he was to now buy the item for £300, having previously agreed a contract at £200?

[pincher]

BertBert said:

Indeed, but that's not what the OP is describing as he paid for the item. So it's not just an offer.
In the second case, they often get away with it with a general E&OE.
As to the OP, it's wrong, but in practice not much you can do about I suspect.
Bert

I thought that when you ‘ordered’ something in Argos or Currys etc, you paid for it there and then and you get your confirmation after that, once the vendor has accepted the order?

[rxe]

Answering some questions:

- it was paid for by PayPal, using an Amex card as the source of funds.

- there is nothing in the T&Cs on their website about them cancelling. It’s all about the buyer cancelling.

- it’s not for an Alfa 155 Q4! Wish I had one those!

I agree, it is more about the morals than anything else. I was just wondering if there was anything in consumer law that stopped them doing this. It’s very different from the ‘65” Tv for £10’ mispricing events.

[mmm-five]

Order the £300 part to see if they actually have it - and are not just increasing their prices to gauge the market value.

Then once you've received it, you'll notice it's damaged, so tell them you'd like a partial refund of £100.

[sunbeam alpine]

OP - I thought I recognised your username from the "keep buying cars" thread.

Are you the twin brother I didn't know I had?

P.S. I know of a Q4 for sale...

[bladebloke]

rxe said:

Answering some questions:

- there is nothing in the T&Cs on their website about them cancelling. It’s all about the buyer cancelling.

I agree, it is more about the morals than anything else. I was just wondering if there was anything in consumer law that stopped them doing this. It’s very different from the ‘65” Tv for £10’ mispricing events.

Re the first bit - this point wouldn't usually be covered by rights for the seller to cancel, it would be covered by the section about when a contract is formed in the first place. If the terms are well drafted they will say that your order is just an offer to purchase and not contract will be formed until [event - probably either them confirming they have accepted your order or perhaps even the time the order is despatched]. I.e. well advised sellers try to make sure they don't become contractually obligated until as late as possible in the proceedings.

Re the second bit - agreed, but if no contract has been formed (see above) they don't owe you diddly. The contract coming into being on a specified event under the seller's control also protects them against cock-ups with wrong prices having been set etc.

[bladebloke]

Red Devil said:

The supplier has clearly refused to perform/renounced the contract.

This is far from clear, because it's quite possible (probably likely) that no contract has been formed (see explanation above).

[SV_WDC]

Might be more an ethics thing here but you see this sort of thing happening if something has been listed incorrectly (a very cheap price) on a website, and the seller decides to refund everyone.

When it's airlines they sometimes choose to absorb the cost, as not doing so may generate bad PR, but other times they choose not to. It does suck, but we're unlikely to know the full story. Their supplier might've raised their costs & they took an order they didn't have stock for at the time. At least the money was returned promptly.

[kestral]

rxe said:

I’ll try and keep this simple. It’s me,not a friend, and there is no back story on it. I’m not going to reveal the name of the company involved.

I ordered a part for a car from a supplier. This particular part has become fairly scarce recently and the price has risen from about £75 a year ago to £150 a month or so ago. I need one, and I found one for sale for £200. Ouch, but I need one, they had it, I bought it. Paid through PayPal, all good.

The company has refunded my money, and cancelled the transaction. Oh well, they probably didn’t have one. I look on their site, and they still have one - but it now costs £300. This feel like they are taking the piss, which should be discouraged. I’m not really complaining about the £300 price, more the bait and switch tactics they are using.

Any laws they are breaking here? Or is this behaviour acceptable according to our current consumer regulations?

The sale of goods act 1979 section 51 covers situations like this.
You can compel them to make good on their agreement with you.
You should ask for the item them to deliver up that self same item they have for sale at £300 for the £200.

If they don't and you can find another part you can buy it at the market price at the time they reneged and hold them responsible for any difference.

The above mentioned sec 51 SOGA is still in force and has not been supeseded by the CRA.
That's statutory law. Regardless of the contract they entered into on civil bases with you.
IE. Offer, acceptance and agreement.

They took the money on the bases of £200 and therfore went past the defence of invitation to treat point.

But knowing and quoting the law does not mean they will resolve the issue. Only action can do that.
You can try and put the frighteners on them but even the gods are powerless agianst fools.

[loskie]

is the company UK based or like many online car parts companies based in Germany or Poland?

[anonymous-user]

kestral said:

The sale of goods act 1979 section 51 covers situations like this.
You can compel them to make good on their agreement with you.
You should ask for the item them to deliver up that self same item they have for sale at £300 for the £200.

If they don't and you can find another part you can buy it at the market price at the time they reneged and hold them responsible for any difference.

The above mentioned sec 51 SOGA is still in force and has not been supeseded by the CRA.
That's statutory law. Regardless of the contract they entered into on civil bases with you.
IE. Offer, acceptance and agreement.

They took the money on the bases of £200 and therfore went past the defence of invitation to treat point.

But knowing and quoting the law does not mean they will resolve the issue. Only action can do that.
You can try and put the frighteners on them but even the gods are powerless agianst fools.

Kestral is almost right on this, although his/her terminology is slightly inaccurate, and he/she is relying on the wrong statutory provisions, for reasons I explain below. Also, the suggestion that the OP's rights are "regardless of the contract" is inaccurate - everything here depends on there being a contract. kestral is however, right in the result, although wrong on the reasoning, and gets bonus points for quoting Schiller.


In summary -

1. the OP and the seller made a contract. The seller broke the contract. The OP has suffered loss as a result.

2. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 supplements many contracts. It is a set of statutory rules about contracts for the sale of goods. People here often mistakenly assert that the 1979 Act has been repealed. It hasn't. In many cases, however the governing Act is the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which regulates contracts between consumers (the OP) and traders.

3. In this case, section 51 of the 1979 Act (damages for non delivery) is disapplied (see section 51 (4)). kestral, you seem to have missed that - important tip: you have to read on to the end of every section in every statute!

4. The relevant statutory provision is section 28 of the Consumer Rights Act 2005.

5. IF, as appears may be the case, the part is not otherwise obtainable at £200, the OP has a claim for the difference between the price he would have paid had the seller performed the contract, and the price the OP must pay to obtain the part. That was the remedy given by section 51 of the 1979 Act (itself reflecting a common law remedy), but section 51 does not apply here. Not a problem, because section 28(13) of the 2015 Act preserves the OP's common law damages remedy.

6. The OP could buy the part for 300 from the seller and sue the seller for 100.

7. Can the OP be bothered to sue for 100? Probably not. I wouldn't.


As an aside, the 1979 Act is both shorter and clearer than the 2015 Act. Consumer rights are now wrapped in excessive verbiage. Generally speaking, the quality of legislation on all topics has gone down since about the 1980s, and much modern legislation is poorly drafted. This decline has been accompanied by (1) a reduction in that period of the number of MPs and Peers who are lawyers, and (2) the almost extinction of the role of Parliamentary counsel. Go figure. None of this matters very much, as the current Government plans to abolish the rule of law, so we can all chill!

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 7th March 10:30

[Mrr T]

Breadvan72 said:

None of this matters very much, as the current Government plans to abolish the rule of law, so we can all chill!

The government does not want to abandon the rule of law they just want the law to do what they say.

[anonymous-user]

That is the very essence of abolishing the rule of law.