Shop offer full refund but not at current contract value

Sandals

Registered User
Messages
1,256
I purchased an item for €X. Delivery date missed (no contact etc). I demanded my money back.

My item came in a larger size which shop agreed to give me instead of losing my money paid. Initially they asked for more money but I again demanded my money back but was won over by the new offer.

Item arrived, wrong one, returned to shop. In fairness salesman shocked item was wrong.

Now shop saying they cant get my new larger item and want to refund the original price paid. My understanding is my refund should be on the larger item as Im at a loss of the larger item, not to mention my time, hassle, trips to shop, phonecalls etc. They are in breach of the contract and I shouldnt be at a loss as a result of this.

I have two receipts showing the original item and the new item.

Any advice appreciated. I will ring consumerconnect tomorrow. Thanks.
 
I would have imagined you are only entitled to a refund of the price you paid originally. Why would you expect more money back. Surely that would then be compensation which is different
 
Hi, from my understanding - they offered you a larger size free of charge as an act of goodwill for their delay. Although this offer in the end was not what you (or even they) was expecting, they are not under obligation to give you the value of the larger item - just the item you originally purchased.
 
+1. You're only entitled to get back what you paid. There are a lot of homeowners who would love to be in your position!
 
+1. There are a lot of homeowners who would love to be in your position!

I honestly cant see why, I have being nothing but "nice" to this shop, giving them ample opportunity and time to sort out a simple sale. A delivery date was missed on two days. A item delivery. A item carted out of my house roughly. Phonecalls made. The last straw came when I was informed that the shop was using their discretion and reverting back to the first sale, telling me to forget the second sale.

These are pieces of information I have copied from the internet and Ill update later after I ring the consumerconnect.

"A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury."

"Money damages is a sum of money that is awarded as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the NET gain that would have accrued but for the breach."

"When you buy goods or a service, you've entered into a contract with the seller or service provider. If the goods or service don't turn out to be as promised, the contract has been broken and you can take the contractor to court, commonly known as 'suing', for breach of contract. Tort law covers things like injury, damage or financial loss as a result of someone not exercising proper care".
 
Your rights will never go beyond what you pay.

They were offering you the larger size at a discount. It would be the same as buying "2 for the price of 1 baked beans" and trying to return both cans at full price.
 
Your rights will never go beyond what you pay.

They were offering you the larger size at a discount. It would be the same as buying "2 for the price of 1 baked beans" and trying to return both cans at full price.

For the life of me I cant see my case being the same as this beans situation. In my mind I entered into a contract for a larger item and as they cant fulfill it, surely I should get the value of this larger item. If I bought the two tins for beans for a price I would only expect to get the same price back.

HOWEVER
Rang consumerconnect, looks like you guys all are right.

I feel Iv been treated poorly by the shop and now after weeks of hassle/waiting am back to my original sum of cash in my hand and will have to go to another shop to purchase and pay extra to get the larger item and wait again.
 
For the life of me I cant see my case being the same as this beans situation. In my mind I entered into a contract for a larger item and as they cant fulfill it, surely I should get the value of this larger item. If I bought the two tins for beans for a price I would only expect to get the same price back.

HOWEVER
Rang consumerconnect, looks like you guys all are right.

I feel Iv been treated poorly by the shop and now after weeks of hassle/waiting am back to my original sum of cash in my hand and will have to go to another shop to purchase and pay extra to get the larger item and wait again.

So, in other words they have cost you time but not money... you are financially no worse off than at the start of the process.

As previous posters have stated you appear to have wanted compensation, which is not the same as a refund.
 
I wasnt looking for compensation but rather the value of what I was offered, so I can go else where and get the item. Seemed reasonable to me but seems I just have to move on.
 
Why would any business refund you more than you paid so that you can then go spend their money with another business? Makes no sense.
 
Why would any business refund you more than you paid ... .
I think OP tries to make that case in the last post - "compensation" - the expectation that there was an entitlement to a refund of the price paid plus some "hassle money", reading between the lines.
 
"A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury."

But you didn’t suffer economic damage did you? I don’t know what ‘other types of measurable injury’ defines itself as.


"Money damages is a sum of money that is awarded as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the NET gain that would have accrued but for the breach."


Your contract is for the original item. I don’t think you had any NET gain that would have occurred but for the breach as described. If you want to claim the second larger item as a new contract then couldn’t they argue that they gave you the second item at a discounted price. It still doesn’t entitle you to look for a larger refund.


"When you buy goods or a service, you've entered into a contract with the seller or service provider. If the goods or service don't turn out to be as promised, the contract has been broken and you can take the contractor to court, commonly known as 'suing', for breach of contract. Tort law covers things like injury, damage or financial loss as a result of someone not exercising proper care".


You havent suffered injury, damage or financial loss. Inconvenience certainly, but the law doesn’t allow for this.



My reading of it anyway. (The bolding was just for contrast)
 
I think OP tries to make that case in the last post - "compensation" - the expectation that there was an entitlement to a refund of the price paid plus some "hassle money", reading between the lines.

Yeah, that was my reading of it too, looking for compensation while stating they weren't looking for compensation.
 
I cant understand why no-one here sees I am at a loss. I was offered a more expensive item for the monies paid but shop now pulling out of the deal after considerably effort on my side, all for nothing. Financially I will be at the loss of the difference between the two items. But as I said Ill just have to move on. Thanks for all the comments.
 
I cant understand why no-one here sees I am at a loss. I was offered a more expensive item for the monies paid but shop now pulling out of the deal after considerably effort on my side, all for nothing. Financially I will be at the loss of the difference between the two items. But as I said Ill just have to move on. Thanks for all the comments.


You will not be at a loss financially at all. Cant see why you dont see that. you are getting a full refund.

The only thing you might have received was an offer of a discount or voucher for future purposes as a gesture of goodwill.

Im sorry for your trouble and the hassle you seem to have been caused but you are getting your full money back, No financial loss whatsover. Suggest you put it down to a bad experience and move on
 
I purchased an item for €X. Delivery date missed (no contact etc). I demanded my money back.

My item came in a larger size which shop agreed to give me instead of losing my money paid. Initially they asked for more money but I again demanded my money back but was won over by the new offer.

.

Sandals,
can you confirm something if you dont mind.

I find the above sentence unclear. You originally paid €X, but does the "but was won over by the new offer" mean that you paid more money?

If you did pay more money, then this is what is causing the confusion in the thread, ie posters have inferred that you only paid the original €X, but you actually paid €X plus the more money for the larger size.


Regards,
Buddyboy
 
The point I get from Sandals posts is that they paid €x for the original item which the shop failed to deliver on. The shop then offered to supply the larger item (worth €y), so the contract was now for the new item. The shop also failed to deliver the larger item, so they are now looking to be compensated for the loss of the larger item - to the value of €y

I see the logic *to a degree* but I think the bit that's missing is that the new contract was essentially -
exchange €x for the larger item plus a certain value in goodwill which the shop was willing to spend

When this contract wasn't completed, the shop refunded €x and essentially took back (lost) the goodwill value.

At the end of the day, the shop wouldn't be liable to refund more than was paid unless I'm missing something very significant.

z
 
The point I get from Sandals posts is that they paid €x for the original item which the shop failed to deliver on. The shop then offered to supply the larger item (worth €y), so the contract was now for the new item. The shop also failed to deliver the larger item, so they are now looking to be compensated for the loss of the larger item - to the value of €y

I see the logic *to a degree* but I think the bit that's missing is that the new contract was essentially -
exchange €x for the larger item plus a certain value in goodwill which the shop was willing to spend

When this contract wasn't completed, the shop refunded €x and essentially took back (lost) the goodwill value.

At the end of the day, the shop wouldn't be liable to refund more than was paid unless I'm missing something very significant.

z

There was no contract for the larger item, only for the original item.
 
But if it wasn't a contract, what was it ? An understanding ? A dig out ? The shop indicated they would supply the larger item instead of the smaller one which was contracted. Does this not mean the contract was simply updated to include the larger item in exchange for (the notional) goodwill of the company ?

I'm *not* suggesting that the OP is due the extra refund, but I think their understanding of the contract side is where the confusion comes in.

z
 
I cant understand why no-one here sees I am at a loss. I was offered a more expensive item for the monies paid but shop now pulling out of the deal after considerably effort on my side, all for nothing. Financially I will be at the loss of the difference between the two items. But as I said Ill just have to move on. Thanks for all the comments.

I think people can understand your frustration at what happened, but not your claim off loss.
You entered a contract to buy xproduct for €y. For whatever reason, that contract could not be performed by the seller and they offered you another item, possibly worth more, for the same price you paid for the original item, and to satisfy their obligations under that contract. Unfortunately, that item was not suitable and you sought to recind the contact you entered into. The other party agreed to do so. Ideally, this puts you back to where you were before you entered into the contract. However, you have incurred costs -in phone calls, etc and you feel you should be compensated for this. This is consequential loss and most contracts you enter will not cover this. Therefore, if this is the case, you have no further lien on the seller. If its not, you need to submit a seperate claim for a refund of all other costs incurred by you. You have no claim for a refund in the amount of the difference between the original price paid and the value of the higher price offered as a goodwill gesture,as you entered no contract for this item.
 
Back
Top