Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is this legal?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The offer to exchange goods that is made by retailers is usually made after the contract of sale has been completed and the terms of the offer are usually printed on the consumers receipt, so it is not then part of the sales contract and is usually stated as being a discretionary offer which means it may be changed or removed at any time by the retailer.

    But if it's part of the T&Cs, or on a sign or asked about before purchase, which lets be fair most people would do before handing over the money if they had a concern.


  • Options
    #63
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The offer to exchange goods that is made by retailers is usually made after the contract of sale has been completed and the terms of the offer are usually printed on the consumers receipt, so it is not then part of the sales contract and is usually stated as being a discretionary offer which means it may be changed or removed at any time by the retailer.
    The vast majority of shops with returns policies have them stated in the shop near the register. And it being a discretionary offer does not mean the contract of sale can be amended after a sale as occurred, only that they can stop offering it to future consumers

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #64
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    MYOB wrote: »
    2, primarily. That the voluntary offer does not form part of the contract nor does it convince the average person to form the contract.

    What is your basis for this belief? Putting aside consumer legislation for a second, how do you think this applies to basic contract formation?


  • Options
    #65
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    MYOB wrote: »
    2, primarily. That the voluntary offer does not form part of the contract nor does it convince the average person to form the contract.
    Whether it's voluntary or not has no bearing. Whether it convinces the person to form the contract has no bearing.

    Once they have made the offer, it forms part of the contract of sale. The only way such a term can be revoked is if it contravenes other legislation, or is found to be an unfair term. It can not be unilaterally revoked by one party to the contract

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #66
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    MYOB wrote: »
    2, primarily. That the voluntary offer does not form part of the contract nor does it convince the average person to form the contract.

    Plenty of places have a similar returns policy in place and it has influenced my decision to purchase products in the past. We have a similar policy in place in my store and customers buy based on this returns policy all the time. The op in this thread was influenced to purchase based on the returns policy so your assertion is invalid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 69,081 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Bepolite wrote: »
    What is your basis for this belief? Putting aside consumer legislation for a second, how do you think this applies to basic contract formation?

    That the contract of sale is based on the product and price; and that any voluntary customer care measures provided after that date were not part of the contract.

    Is there any example of this actually being upheld in the courts?


  • Options
    #68
    Shadylou
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭Shadylou


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Plenty of places have a similar returns policy in place and it has influenced my decision to purchase products in the past. We have a similar policy in place in my store and customers buy based on this returns policy all the time. The op in this thread was influenced to purchase based on the returns policy so your assertion is invalid.
    I made it clear to the shop assistant that i would not purchase the boots unless i could get a refund so i think its now really unfair of barretts to change the terms after i bought the boots and have no control over it


  • Options
    #69
    jhegarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    MYOB wrote: »
    That the contract of sale is based on the product and price; and that any voluntary customer care measures provided after that date were not part of the contract.

    Is there any example of this actually being upheld in the courts?

    Every part of the contract is voluntary. They don't have to sell the item and you don't need to buy it.

    But it all forms part of the contract once one is made.


  • Options
    #70
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    MYOB wrote: »
    That the contract of sale is based on the product and price; and that any voluntary customer care measures provided after that date were not part of the contract.

    Is there any example of this actually being upheld in the courts?

    Yes there are examples of this being upheld in the District Court from what I can gather from a colleague. I see where you're confused. You think that these conditions are placed after the contract is formed. They aren't in most cases they form part of the t&cs. Do you understand now or is there another element to your argument.


  • Options
    #71
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    MYOB wrote: »
    That the contract of sale is based on the product and price;
    That's quite clearly not true. Example: I walk into an electronics shop and ask to purchase a TV. I pay my money, and the salesperson turns around and says "Right, you can have that in 6 months". Unless otherwise stated prior to the sale, one of the implied terms would be immediate provision of the goods.
    MYOB wrote: »
    and that any voluntary customer care measures provided after that date were not part of the contract.
    Unless of course they are explicitly stated prior to the forming of the contract
    MYOB wrote: »
    Is there any example of this actually being upheld in the courts?
    Are you going to show an example to the contrary?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    Sorry I forgot to add the classic case on retail sale contract formation which is the Boots Phramasuitical (spelling) case as court cases seem to be requested.


  • Options
    #73
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Shadylou wrote: »
    I made it clear to the shop assistant that i would not purchase the boots unless i could get a refund so i think its now really unfair of barretts to change the terms after i bought the boots and have no control over it

    I think your problem is that they are in receivership so that they are now a legally different entity. Despite it being the same ship with the same name and the same people working there it is a different company. Given this I don't think they have to honour the original contract as legally they weren't the ones who the contract is with. However, I could be mistaken.


  • Options
    #74
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    I think your problem is that they are in receivership so that they are now a legally different entity. Despite it being the same ship with the same name and the same people working there it is a different company. Given this I don't think they have to honour the original contract as legally they weren't the ones who the contract is with. However, I could be mistaken.

    I'm hazy on recievers myself so this is just thinking out loud but is it not the case that the company is still the company. I don't want to start waffling on about separate legal personality other than to say a company is a legal person, it's the entity that is contracted with. That entity is still in existence but with a receiver attached. I could be wrong also.


  • Options
    #75
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 69,081 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    28064212 wrote: »
    Are you going to show an example to the contrary?

    I can't see any times it's even been taken to court.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MYOB wrote: »
    Administration is a UK term. In Ireland they're either in examinership or receivership.
    Changes in European law mean that if the parent company of a group is given protection from its creditors this can be extended to all EU companies in that group. Barratts in Ireland are included in the administration order issued by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division in the UK.
    http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60687/notices/1939302
    I'm not a lawyer so wouldn't be able to quote which directive covers it but I have had practical experience of a UK administration.


  • Options
    #77
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    MYOB wrote: »
    I can't see any times it's even been taken to court.

    You wouldn't it would be decided on the SmCC, DC or possibly the Curcuit. I don't want to start the sniping again but the person I asked was a bit incredulous that I was even asking based on how fundamental this is when talking about contract formation. I obviously didn't tell them I was having an Internet argument!


  • Options
    #78
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    MYOB wrote: »
    I can't see any times it's even been taken to court.
    So the only debate is on what the law says.

    If a shop has a sign up in plain view saying "Free delivery on all products within 24 hours", and the customer buys something, part of the sale contract is that the shop must deliver the item within 24 hours. If they don't, they are in breach of contract. It's the exact same principle

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #79
    emeldc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,597 ✭✭✭emeldc


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    I think your problem is that they are in receivership so that they are now a legally different entity. Despite it being the same ship with the same name and the same people working there it is a different company. Given this I don't think they have to honour the original contract as legally they weren't the ones who the contract is with. However, I could be mistaken.

    Thank you for that. That's kind of the answer I was looking for a couple of hundred posts ago :rolleyes:. Although given that some companies trade out of administration and continue as normal, I still think the OP's original contract should be honoured.


  • Options
    #80
    Red_Dwarf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭Red_Dwarf


    MYOB wrote: »
    I can't see any times it's even been taken to court.


    You write as if you are typing facts .

    You really need to start your posts as " In my opinion" because you dont know the answer, just your opinion.

    Op you should contact the receiver and fax or email the T&C on the back of the receipt, See what they have to say. Do this before the 4th of December as that is before they 28 day policy is up


  • Options
    #81
    Shadylou
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭Shadylou


    Red_Dwarf wrote: »
    You write as if you are typing facts .

    You really need to start your posts as " In my opinion" because you dont know the answer, just your opinion.

    Op you should contact the receiver and fax or email the T&C on the back of the receipt, See what they have to say. Do this before the 4th of December as that is before they 28 day policy is up

    I sent a letter with a copy of my receipt to the address given but I won't be holding my breath......


  • Advertisement
Advertisement