shop/trading standards

[Hgrove]

Today I had a query with a shop and I ended up telephoning trading standards.  I am not sure they gave me accurate advice.  The officer said that as I had not paid, there was no contract.  But I was supposed to pay on collection so there was valuable consideration (a promise to pay).  She also said that if there was a contract, I was in breach because I had changed my mind and no longer wanted the item.  But actually, the retailer was saying the item was going to be more expensive, and take a lot longer, when I had made it clear that I needed it urgently.  The officer then semi-admitted that the retailer was then offering me a new contract - which I did not have to accept!  However, she maintained that not offering me a refund was "internal policy".  (In fact, I later remembered that I was supposed to pay when I collected it, but the point stands).  She also said that although they "educate" retailers, it was up to me to write to this retailer and explain how the law stands.  I'd like to write to trading standards to say that I think they got it wrong.  (As for the retailer, I have no need to pursue it anymore.)  Did they get it wrong?

[Didwot]

A contract arises when an offer is accepted, so if I say that I will sell you my camera for �100 a contract is formed when you say "i agree" or similar. We then perform the contract with you handing over the cash, and me giving you the camera. The situation in shops is that putting goods on display does not constitute an offer, but an invitation to treat, which invites the customer to offer to buy the goods, and it is then up to the shop to decide whether or not to sell the goods From your question it sounds as though the situation is slightly different in that the goods were not even in stock and that you asked for the shop to get them in for you. Now it is a nice question of fact and law. Did youi agree with the shop that they would get the stock and you would buy the item at a particular price (contract) or did you ask them about the goods and they said they would be getting some in and it would take so long (no contract), Without more information I cannot go further. Two subsidiary points. Time of performance of a contract is not of the essence. The law does not care whether you get your goods this week or next, unless you have told the supplier that you must have them by a particular date. Second point - refunds - if you buy something which is defective you are entitled to your money back. If you change your mind you are entitled to nothing, but lots of shops will give a refund, or a credit note - its up to them.

[Hgrove]

Part one. Thank you for your reply.  I tried to summarise hence I had to leave a lot out.  In reality, I am now more annoyed with trading standards than with the shop. The background is that I took my watch in because it was not working.  They said they would give it a good clean.  I paid them �26.  It did not work afterwards.  I took it back in.  They said they would change the movement.  After 7 weeks or so they said they could not do so after all.  I was getting increasingly irritated because they kept promising to ring me and they never did.  I always had to call into the shop to check what was happening.  Now the latest.  When they said they could not repair it after all I selected a watch from their window (i.e. in stock) but the strap was too short.  At their invitation I selected a strap from their display.  They said they could get the longer strap in, in a couple of days, and they would ring me.  Now, I think (though of course they would query this wouldn't they) after this history, I made it quite clear that a couple of days was the longest I was prepared to wait - because of them fobbing me off I have been without a watch since I think September and I was not prepared to wait any longer.  (Fobbing me off: when I said I wanted my watch back they kept saying I should give it a bit longer to see if the part could be found.  I think they knew it was hopeless).  We agreed I would pay when I collected.

[Hgrove]

Part two.  I would be surprised if there wasn't a contract here.  The goods were identified, we had agreed.  However, the couple of days came and went and no phonecall.  When I called in yesterday, they said, no apologies for not ringing me after a couple of days, just that the price would be higher than quoted because the strap had to be specially made, and that it would take at least another couple of weeks.  In view of the history, I am surprised that time is immaterial.  Having been promised two days, I was not prepared to wait at least 3 weeks.   I would not have ordered that strap if they had told me it had to be specially made. The only problem is that I can't remember exactly what words I used but I think I made it clear that time was of the essence.   I could not cope any longer without a watch.  This should be clear both from my words and from the history behind this transaction.  In the circumstances was the trading standards officer right to say that there was no contract because I had not (yet) paid?  Thank you once again.

[Didwot]

The problems wtih the old watch do not impact directly on the subsequent dealings, save perhaps to put you on your guard! The information you give suggests quite strongly that a contract did arise for the purchase of the new watch. It seems unlikely that the shop would obtain a larger strap "on spec" but was soing so to enable it to fulfill the contract. I doubt that time was made of the esesnce to the performance of the contract for these reasons. 1) the time scale for the delivery of the strap was wholly outside the shops control. 2) although couple means two, when used converstionally as in a couple of days, it has a looser meaning, and cannot define an exact point in time. If you said "I must have a new watch by Monday", and they said, "no problem", matters might be different. In answer to your simple question, trading standards are wrong on their understanding of contract law. One does not have to have paid for their to be a binding contract, just to have agreed all the terms. In many contracts payment is the very last thing to be done!

[Hgrove]

Thank you very much for your reply.  I am a little disappointed that time was not part of the contract - I feel this is rather harsh on the consumer;  but in any case the matter with the shop is pretty much closed in that when I said under the new conditions (i.e. taking so much longer than agreed) I did not want it any more, they did not particularly argue with that.   Obviously I am not going into that shop again and I am telling all my friends what happened (which, presumably, being completely true is not defamatory!).  But I would ask something else - not a legal question, just common sense.  The trading standards officer said that although one of their duties was to educate traders, it was up to me to write to this shop and tell the man that he had got the law wrong!  Surely this is ridiculous?  Firstly, this man had a threatening body language towards me;  a friend who accompanied me into the shop felt the same.  Hence I would not write to him with my name and address at the top right hand corner.  Secondly he would not believe what I, a member of the public, would be writing!  During my long discussion with him, he claimed that there was no contract because he had signed nothing.  He became quite aggressive when I told him that a contract does not have to be in writing etc etc.  The trading standards officer told me on the phone that the only duties they have to carry out by statute are weights and measures.  Educating retailers is only a duty because of Council policy, not statute, and therefore they would not write to this retailer.  I realise they are busy but suggesting that I write to him saying "look mate, a contract does not have to be in writing" is - I think - ludicrous!

[Hgrove]

Didwot, sorry to be such a pain, but can I please ask something else on the matter of time in the contract?  Basically this:  my contract with the retailer was not very precise on the matter of timing.  So much is true.  A couple of days, as you rightly point out, is imprecise.  Would not the previous history therefore be an aid to construction in the contract, suggesting that the couple of days had to be interpreted at the shorter end of the couple of days (i.e. 2 days or so) rather than at the longer end of a couple of days i.e. 3 weeks?  (In fact I think 3 weeks - which was minimum - is too long for a couple of days.)  I hope you don't mind my asking so many questions Didwot, I am finding this very interesting and am grateful to you for your time and patience.

[Didwot]

Trading Standards are creatures of statute, and their duties will only extend to what the relevant statutes provide. I can not answer precisely what those duties are, but they obviously include weights and measures, consumer protection, misleading prices etc. I doubt that ordinary contract disputes are within thier remit.
The general rule in contract law is that time is not of the essence, unless there is an express agreement that it is, or unless the circumstances of the case indicate it to have been the intention of the parties. eg I want a case of champagne next Friday - time not of the essence, I want a case of champagne next Friday to serve to my important guests that evening - time of the essence. If the contract is not performed within a reasonable time either party can make time of the essence by giving notice to the other requiring perforamnce of the contract within a reasonable time. This rule even applies contracts for the sale of houses. If your seller fails to complete on the due date all you can do is to give him notice to make time of the essence, (and charge him interest under an express term in the contract) and only if he then fails to complete is he in breach of the contract. Lets turn things around. Supposing the shop had got in the new watch strap, but it had taken three days. If time was of the essence you would have been entitled to cancel the contract after two days. Surely not the intention of the parties!

[Hgrove]

Thank you very much Didwot, I really appreciate the time and effort you have spent advising me.  I could go on forever but I feel I have picked your brains enough for one question!  Thank you once again.

[Oneeyedvic]

Just to add a few furhter thoughts to Didwots excellent summarisation:

 

1) Sale of Goods and Services Act (1980?) says that services should be carried out within a reasonable time - though that of course is open to interpretation - I managed to argue this one out with a bathroom installer for a while.

2) In the example above with the Champagne, if you had said you wanted the Champagne by Firday toserve important guests. If the goods have not turned up by Friday, not only can you cancel the order, you can buy the goods elsewhere and sue the original supplier for the difference. (Would probably involve going to court though - and not many people could be bothered).

 

Trading Standards staff want an easy life (I guess like most poeple) and will do the least they can. When a shop keeper (over 10 years ago) I had hassle with a jobs worth TS official. I complained recently about Woolwich (part of Barclays) and they saw it as too much hassle to deal with (their National advertising campaign was illegal).

 

You can always try going to your local paper?

 

[Didwot]

....or put it down to experience.
Ciao