Quote:
Originally Posted by PGC Trading
Just an Update on My situation on this:
Received letter through the post, GameJelly AKA Darren intends to defend part of the claim. This acknowledgement was received on October 21st. Darren has now been given ANOTHER 28 Days to file his defence. I was hoping this would end within the next few days but it doesn't look like it...
I can assume from past emails and communication that he is disputing items which were dispatched AFTER I requested refunds, where do I stand in from a legal perspective? Darren claims that the items were sent, late but still within the 21 days (from the point of dispatch...) even though everyone knew that the 21 day rule started from the date of purchase. Any Legal advice/guidance would be highly helpful...
Can't believe this is got so out of hand... Darren I am disappointed... 
£700 Owed, £0 Received.
Thanks in advance for any help... (I hope there are some lawyers on this forum lol) |
I would not worry to much allthough he looks set to drag it out. I would make sure you have print outs of all e-mails, pm's his t&c's and orders placed/payment receipts.
The onus is on him to provide evidence that he dispatched within the correct time frame. Also he legally has an obligation to refund on orders not dispatched where refunds are requested.
All he is doing is buying himself some more time to delay payment to you.
I would also keep all the tracking numbers that have been sent to you for parcels not received and name/addresses of where they are going to. He may wish for his supplier to stay out of this the court would determain that so the onus is on him again to PROVE that items that he said were dispatched actually were.
Remedies for breach of contract
Remember some rights that can't be excluded from consumer contracts can be excluded from business-to-business contracts. So, for instance, being supplied with defective goods may not be a breach of contract if an exclusion term limiting your supplier's liability in this area had been included.
However, you might be able to challenge the exclusion clause on the grounds that it was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
If your supplier's liability is not limited by reasonable exclusion clauses and the goods supplied aren't fit for purpose, are of unsatisfactory quality or don't match the seller's description, you're entitled under the Sale of Goods Act to reject them within a reasonable time after delivery and to recover any money you have paid.
Similar remedies are available for purchases of services. If services aren't carried out with reasonable skill, you're entitled to ask for the work to be redone at no extra cost. Or, if your supplier won't do this, you're entitled to ask another supplier to put the work right and then claim the cost from the original supplier.
Where a price has been agreed as part of the contract, you aren't obliged to pay any more. And where a deadline for the carrying out of the services has been agreed and has not been met, you are entitled to compensation for any foreseeable losses you may suffer as a result.
I would also read the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which will basically squash all his terms nonsense of not liable for losses etc as this is decided by the courts (i.e if you wash to show that you eBay business callapsed because of this you can claim compensation but it would be down to the court to decide as to wether it was a direct result and if it was his "we are not liable" statements would be ruled not enforceable and he would have to pay)
__________________
Reliable Computer Dropshipper
www.pcdropship.com
Windows 7 Software And Netbooks Now Available
)
Linear Mode
March 2010
