Bike shop price increase after paying deposit

The Phantom Jipper

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456252#Comment_118456252

It was meant more as another card the OP could use, but would the Small Claims Court not be in a position to compel the seller to fulfill the terms before it got to returning the deposit?

In any event, the OP would be at a loss if they bought at the new price, or got the refund and had to pay another seller at a higher price simply because the original seller reneged on their agreement.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456311#Comment_118456311

But the op hasn’t yet bought at a loss, and as far as I am aware, the SCC does not award redress above what the consumer has spent.

In reality, the shop will say they are unable to fulfil the contract due delays/unavailability/Covid/Brexit/ blah blah blah.

It is entirely possible that other shops are selling existing stock whereas the op’s shop is buying to order and costs of delivery are more expensive, particularly if it is coming from the UK. It’s not nice to find the cost is higher, and the shop should suck it up, but they may be struggling and not willing to provide it at the agreed price.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118456252#Comment_118456252

Yes, he is. The loss is the difference between (a) €1,650, the price for this bike under the contract he has with this bike shop, and (b) whatever he has to pay to buy the same bike from another shop. He will only avoid a loss if he can buy the bike elsewhere for €1,650 or less.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459112#Comment_118459112

Of course you have more knowledge of this, but doesn’t the SCC limit awards to what the claimant is directly out of pocket rather than what they could be if they bought the item elsewhere for a higher price? If the deposit is returned, what is the op directly out of pocket?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459187#Comment_118459187

I'm not aware of that but, as I have no direct experience of the small claims procedure, this doesn't mean that it isn't the case. I'm approaching this on the basis that:

• the general principle in breach of contract cases is that the plaintiff should be put in the position he would have been in, had the contract been performed in accordance with its terms; and
• in this case, that means he should get the bike for an expenditure of €1,650; and
• that means that, if he has to buy the bike elsewhere for more than €1,650, the measure of damages is the difference between what he paid and €1,650; and
• I don't see anything in the District Court Rules or elsewhere to say that, under the small claims procedure, the usual rules for measuring damages don't apply.

But, as I say, I have no direct experience. There may be something in the Rules that I haven't spotted, or there may be some practice or practice direction that says that registrar's won't measure damages on that basis and, if you want that, you have to go to a court hearing.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459239#Comment_118459239

I’m afraid I relied on this site, (last paragraph) and what has been posted in the CI forum by claimants who have experienced the SCC.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459239#Comment_118459239

"that means that, if he has to buy the bike elsewhere for more than €1,650, the measure of damages is the difference between what he paid and €1,650"

You can only make a SCP claim against the vendor of any goods purchased, if the deposit is returned and items are bought elsewhere then there is no SCP claim against the original shop because there is no purchase of goods from them.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459362#Comment_118459362

So if you have a consumer contract for the sale of goods, but the vendor breaches the contract by refusing to supply the goods for the contract price, you can't pursue damages using the small claims procedure?

Looks like a lacuna in the scheme, no?

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118459671#Comment_118459671

But by accepting the deposit back and going elsewhere is a clear indication both parties have accepted rescission.

Remember also that whilst breach of contract can and more often than not does play a part in SCP claims that breach of contract it is not a valid claim for the purposes of the SCP simpliciter, the cavaet for a SCP claim in relation to goods is that the claim relates to goods actually purchased from the vendor, not goods that you intend to purchase, there may have been an intention to purchase and a contractually agreed price as well as a good intention deposit paid at first, however in the scenario where you describe that the deposit is returned and the item bought elsewhere then no item has been purchased from the original vendor.

Now if you refuse to take back the deposit and intend to enforce the contract at the agreed price it may be a different matter, but, until final payment is actually made is the item considered actually purchased for the purposes of the SCP?

Peregrinus

I accept what you're saying. What I'm wondering is whether there is any way that you could position yourself so that you could proceed using the SCP.

If you accept the return of the deposit then, yes, the contract is rescinded. What if you decline the return of the deposit and instead tender the balance of the purchase price (which the vendor will, naturally, refuse). Whether or not you use the SCP, you can't go to the District Court to get an order compelling the vendor to complete the contract, so instead you sue him for damages for breach of contract, the damages being the difference between the contract price and what you actually had to pay to get the bike.

You can certainly sue him in the District Court; the only question is whether you can use the Small Claims Procedure, and this will be decided in the first instance by the Registrar, I imagine without hearing the defendant. You would seek to persaude the registrar that, when Ord. 53A talks about "any goods or services purchased" in the context of a claim in relation to a consumer contract, that actually means any goods or services to be purchased under the contract. But I wouldn't give much odds for your chances of success, particularly if the narrower interpretation, that it only refers to goods or services that have actually been purchased, is already the established practice.

So, yeah, I think you're right; I doubt that the SCP can be used here. But that's why I say there's a lacuna in the scheme; it seems to me that if you have a consumer contract for the sale of goods or services, and you have part-performance in the form of payment of some of the purchase price, and the vendor refuses to deliver the goods or services he has contracted to supply, that's the kind of thing the consumer ought to be able to pursue through a small claims procedure.

Dav010

Does the fact that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act allows for the vendor to repair, replace or REFUND in cases where there is a dispute with the consumer, have a bearing in this? By returning the deposit the shop is satisfying a redress option in full.

Seth Brundle

What if you decline the return of the deposit and instead tender the balance of the purchase price (which the vendor will, naturally, refuse).

I know that here you are discussing the SCP but in this particular thread the OP is using the BTW scheme so technically is the employer the customer, not the OP (although the employer paying the deposit muddies the water somewhat)?

Revenue seem to think it is the employer who then uses the bike as part of the employees payment: https://www.revenue.ie/en/jobs-and-pensions/taxation-of-employer-benefits/cycle-to-work-scheme.aspx

oknepop

As a brief update, I spoke with the shop and it turns out they ordered the wrong bike for me (priced at 1900).

The bike I wanted is still up 50 quid vs the original price docket price, and I suppose the main point of this thread was about price changes after a deposit had been paid. That being said, the bike I want, because it wasn't ordered, wont be available till next year so it could be argued that there's some resultant loss to me there. Anyway, I've more important things to worry about in life than being out 50 quid, so I've gone through another shop that can get the bike for me much sooner.

Original shop is returning my deposit.