Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thank you derek and Ketara, that is precisely what I have been getting at.

I hope they don't find our Diana is dead or all hell will break loose!

AndrewC wrote:derek,

One thing I would change to your summary, if the terms and conditions of the contract has a provision that;
a. Ownership of the goods never transfer until full payment is made
b. Should the contract be cancelled then the purchaser shall be responsible for the return of the goods.

Both of these are allowable under the DSR and they are not 'unfair terms'.

With regard to point 4, I've seen this numerous times and as far as I can discover there isn't any justification in law for the ownership of goods to be transfered.

Could someone be so good as to provide legal reference to this claim?

Cheers

Andrew

I honestly don't know UK law well enough to comment on that. I was only summarizing what had been posted in a hopefully easier to understand format. As per most things, the fine print still applies unless the fine print itself is overridden by the laws in question which, unsurprisingly can and does happen.

The laws of consumer sales are pretty value neutral. They aren't really ovelry concerned with concepts like "theft" and are more concerned with trying to ensure that retailers operate fairly. A few customers getting a windfall order (where they dont' pay for it but keep the goods) is a pretty close approximation to damages both compensatory (for the customers time) and punitive (to punish the retailer and teach them a lesson).

Personal morality is just that: personal. I've gotten ebay refunds only to have packages arrive. I send them back because I dont' want to risk the negative karma.

OTOH, let's say the OP does get a full refund and eventually recieves and ships back the package. In this case, through now fault of his own, the OP is still out three months of possession of either his money or the gods, plus the time spent returning the pacakge. Add in that most people mail order things they actually want, and are planning on using, and his moral (not legal) "damages" can go up quickly.

So, while keeping goods you recieved a refund for might strike you (personally) as unethical or improper, see nothing wrong with it in cases where the custmoer was genuinly put out by the delay. If somebody is going to bear a burden, it should be the party in the wrong.

Ulver wrote:

d-usa wrote:To use a better argument:

Would the company have been okay with delivering the model, then waiting 3 months for payment?

In business to business transactions this happens a lot, it's called credit. Although 90 days is rare (30ish days being more common) it does happen

This is not remotely the same. I order things for work all the time, and with vendors who we deal with a lot almost all have the payment terms "Net 30". I.e., they send us the goods, and we have 30 days to pay them. That's because we're a business, give them a lot of money, and generally have trust between us due to past transactions completed successfully- so they trust that we will pay.

None of this applies to the business sending what we ordered late. If I order something that's supposed to come in a few weeks, and it takes 3 months, our business will Never deal with that vendor again. Things along these lines have happend, and they are not acceptable here, or in any setting that I know of. Using the idea of Net 30 for business payments to justify months overdue sending of models (or any item) is just plain absurd.

Even if this somehow did apply in a business setting, stretching it to cover a one-off transaction with a consumer makes no sense whatsoever.

Polonius, I always look forward to your input on threads like these, and this is no exception. However we are discussing UK laws here, which seem to have several fundemental differences.

What I'm trying to get across is that cancelling the order while the goods are in transit and then keeping the goods, is not a 'windfall order' or an unsolicited gift. Ownership of the goods always remains with the original sender, because the original contract that transferred ownership was cancelled.

An unsolicited gift or 'windfall order' can be rightfully kept as there is no expectation of rociprication(sp) ie cash, and as such can be kept. Where such and item is solicited, ie asked for, you then can't keep it and not, or refuse to, pay for it. The items were sent with the expectation of payment, if you don't want to pay for it, then the items are to be returned under the T&C of the contract. The biggest examples of this are the various mail order catalogues here in the UK.

If you ever want to have fun on ownership of property, try personal bankruptcies, otherwise known as sequestrations here in Scotland, now thats fun!

Cheers

Andrew

Didn't you think something was up when you were only charged $15 for shipping from England to Australia for hundreds of dollars, I mean we are probably talking at least a few pounds of goods, not to mention import fees possibly being thrown in on top of that.

RiTides wrote:

Ulver wrote:

d-usa wrote:To use a better argument:

Would the company have been okay with delivering the model, then waiting 3 months for payment?

In business to business transactions this happens a lot, it's called credit. Although 90 days is rare (30ish days being more common) it does happen

This is not remotely the same. I order things for work all the time, and with vendors who we deal with a lot almost all have the payment terms "Net 30". I.e., they send us the goods, and we have 30 days to pay them. That's because we're a business, give them a lot of money, and generally have trust between us due to past transactions completed successfully- so they trust that we will pay.

None of this applies to the business sending what we ordered late. If I order something that's supposed to come in a few weeks, and it takes 3 months, our business will Never deal with that vendor again. Things along these lines have happend, and they are not acceptable here, or in any setting that I know of. Using the idea of Net 30 for business payments to justify months overdue sending of models (or any item) is just plain absurd.

Even if this somehow did apply in a business setting, stretching it to cover a one-off transaction with a consumer makes no sense whatsoever.

I was responding to what d-usa put of

d-usa wrote:To use a better argument:

Would the company have been okay with delivering the model, then waiting 3 months for payment?

and it is exactly the same. I never said it was the same as the vendor sending items late. I addressed the issue of quantity of business and trust in my post.

I quoted your quote of d-usa (and you quoted it from me) so I know that's what you were responding to...

Then how was it not the same?

You're right- what I meant was, Net 30 is not the same as the situation being discussed in the OP (that is, late delivery, rather than agreed-upon-delayed-payment). But I did misread what you wrote a bit- I guess I'm not sure why the attitude of "It's 3 months late- deal with it" seems so prevalent in the thread. And having had my orders messed up by a few online miniature sellers before, I can relate to how frustrating it is, and don't think it should be brushed off lightly. Hence my saying that with the business I work for, we wouldn't order from such a vendor again...

But I do apologize for the mis-reading: my point is that Net 30 doesn't apply to late delivery. Your agreeing to go ahead and deliver, and have me pay later, to entice my business is one thing. Your agreeing to ship an item out after my payment, and being months late, is much different, because it was never the agreed upon terms. Hopefully that clears up what I was trying to say...

Gotcha

I agree the slow/late delivery is extremely frustrating, been there myself (not with miniatures) but I know from experience there's precious little a vendor will do to make it up to you if they don't want to (many of the more customer-focussed ones will make the effort). MGS's template email/letter seems a very good option though, a shy bairn gets nowt, and all that.

I'm really surprised that there is so little distinction between "legally obliged" and "good customer service".

I think that the company in question would most likely be legally obligated to refund your shipping costs, as they did not ship these products out via the method agreed upon.Now, in terms of compensation, I don't think (barring specific legislation) that they would be legally obliged to do much more (other than offer a full refund).



On the other hand, there's the simple matter of retaining a customer who spends hundreds of dollars. Even if not legally obliged to do so, it might be good business sense to offer a customer who suffered a bad experience due to your error a partial refund or a merchandise credit. The OP might even suggest this to them in a polite way ("I have never done business with your company before, but this bad experience has made me wary. Why should I continue to do business with you after this experience?"). If they don't (or won't) take a hint, then I would probably inform them in writing that you will not be doing business with them again, and precisely why.

I work at a bookstore in the States, and if a customer has a poor experience with us, even if it's not "our fault", I always try to include some sort of good will gesture as well as making the situation right. If we keep someone waiting because we can't find their book, I might give them a discount when we locate it. If a third party vendor screws up an order, I'll make amends and offer an additional discount. It's not due to the incompetence of anyone at the store if UPS misroutes their order, but if I can both get the problem fixed and improve the customer's opinion of us, isn't that worthwhile? Heck, a free cup of coffee and an apology goes a long way to soothing someone's feelings.

None of that implies that the business "has to" do that. On the other hand, do you want to do business with a company who doesn't really care when they screw up, other than to do the minimum legally required to fix it?

What would I do?
I'd say "I want my money back, I'm returning the models".

Then just not send them.

But, I hate being messed about by companies.

VenerableBrotherPelinore...

You ordered from maelstrom and their service is becoming increasingly gak...