# Shop offer full refund but not at current contract value



## Sandals (3 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## rustbucket (3 Jul 2012)

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


----------



## Jazz01 (3 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## Eithneangela (3 Jul 2012)

+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!


----------



## Sandals (4 Jul 2012)

Eithneangela said:


> +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".


----------



## jhegarty (4 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## Sandals (4 Jul 2012)

jhegarty said:


> 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.


----------



## mandelbrot (4 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Sandals (4 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## Leo (4 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jul 2012)

Leo said:


> 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.


----------



## flattea2 (4 Jul 2012)

"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)


----------



## Leo (4 Jul 2012)

mathepac said:


> 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.


----------



## Sandals (4 Jul 2012)

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.


----------



## rustbucket (4 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> 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


----------



## Buddyboy (5 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> 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


----------



## zag (5 Jul 2012)

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


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Jul 2012)

zag said:


> 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
> ...


 
There was no contract for the larger item, only for the original item.


----------



## zag (5 Jul 2012)

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


----------



## Luternau (5 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> 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.


----------



## Sandals (5 Jul 2012)

Luternau said:


> Unfortunately, that item was not suitable and you sought to recind the contact you entered into



The delivered item was not the larger version of the one I had originally agreed but an in between model missing a design feature we specifically purchased the original for. Even the salesman was shocked as he had offered me the upgrade of the larger model of my exact model I had purchased. He requested more money initially but eventually agreed to give the larger model for my original cash figure.  

Its the shop thats looking to pull out of the deal making me accept the inbetween model or the smaller model I had originally ordered meaning I lose out on the larger model with the design feature. In accepting back my original cash from the shop I will have to add the extra cash to purchase the offered larger model in another store. I feel very hard done by as I thought consumer law would protect me in such a situation.


----------



## Leo (5 Jul 2012)

Consumer law is there to protect you, to ensure you do not lose out. It is not there to get you back more than you paid when a business can't (or won't) follow through.

Get your cash back, you're no worse off than where you started from. Then start the process elsewhere.


----------



## Luternau (5 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> In accepting back my original cash from the shop I will have to add the extra cash to purchase the offered larger model in another store. I feel very hard done by as I thought consumer law would protect me in such a situation.



Why not buy the same model you were originally going to buy from another store? Surely that would put you back to where you would have been,had things worked out as you thought?
If you have decided in the meantime that you would prefer the larger/better/premium model, that was offered to you for the price of a lower quality/ less fancy/ less prestigeous product, as a gesture of good will/alternaive to the product you contracted to buy, and which appears from your post to cost more, you cannot expect them to refund you the higher price. The law which applies here, does not bind a retailer to compensate you a higher amount than the price of the original item.
There is, as you were told by consumer connect or similar body, no remedy available other than what was offered to you. To think otherwise, is an unreasonable expectation of what the law should provide.


----------



## elcato (5 Jul 2012)

I think the only fair solution here is that the shopkeeper give you the whole shop for nothing. After all, you are doing him a favour in accepting the better deal in the first place. Where are the consumer association when you need them.


----------



## Sandals (5 Jul 2012)

Great news (well for me anyway) I decided to ring the manufacturers myself, went through 11 different departments (Ireland and England) and finally have confirmation that yes my larger model with my specific design feature is available and in Ireland. 

I then rang the shop, who repeated well they couldn't find one (yet I knew the salesperson I was talking to was just in the shop this morning) and I passed on the name of the person I was talking to. Will have my item as soon as they get it in. 

@ elcato: All I wanted was the shop to honor what they told me they would "sell" me. I was not looking for anything else other than that. I did feel I was doing the shop a favor in accepting the second deal after the hassle/expense Iwent to on the no-show deliveries. They were going to lose a sale until the goodwill gesture was offered. Plus obviously from the shop's point of view it was worth holding onto the sale also by the goodwill gesture. 

@Luternau: I didnt find the  larger model worth the extra money at the time of purchase so went for the smaller one with the extra design feature. We are talking 10cm in width (everything else the same). In order to hold my sale the shop offered the larger one with the design feature. Of course I was delighted and the fact two delivery dates missed etc forgotten. However after I seen the size of the larger model I would have purchased the larger model the second time.


----------



## allie12 (5 Jul 2012)

Well I bought a new washing machine for €449, it was delivered and there was a fault with it, they offered to send out an engineer-which I refused, and asked for replacement machine. After another few calls/half day off work it arrived and they had upgraded the machine to the next model (difference of a further RRP€120) as a good will gesture. 

Now hypothetically, if there had been any problems with the second machine, the "upgraded" one I would not have expected to get back more than what I paid (i.e the €449)....

So using the above example is Sandals looking at getting the higher RRP, i.e the value of what the "upgrade"should have been?


----------



## Luternau (6 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> Great news (well for me anyway) I decided to ring the manufacturers myself, went through 11 different departments (Ireland and England) and finally have confirmation that yes my larger model with my specific design feature is available and in Ireland.



So all is well. Would you mind telling us all what this item is with the specific design feature is? I am intrigued, as in all your posts, you went to great lengths not to describe it !!! ;-)


----------



## Sandals (6 Jul 2012)

I will when Iv the item safety landed in my house. Just the owner of the shop told me to read up consumer law using this website and another one. I told him Id ring the "professionals" consumerconnect (which he'd never heard of). 

@allie12, It appears I wouldnt be entitled to the higher RRP of the upgraded model. The shop told me I was suffering "consumer frustration, which they're are many steps I can personally take to reduce/avoid this ie the ultimate one take my money back". However in my case things didnt just add up (told none of the upgraded model available) when still live on manufacturers website and also on sale in online large company.  

I honestly would have thought a shop couldnt try to break a contract without there being a penalty. Was told "goodwill" is a "grey area". I mean if I wanted to break/broke the contract would it be a simple cash of just getting my full money back. I douth it!


----------



## mcaul (7 Jul 2012)

and the penalty for the shop is they don't get the profit margin that they would have had if they had sold you the product.

What you need to realise is we don't live in a perfect world, things go wrong sometimes, but we are not entitled to compensation for every small little inconvenience we suffer - you seem to have convinced yourself about this and have yourself worked up about it and therefore any "suffering" is totally self inflicted.

Sorry if this sounds harse, but read all your posts and look at the utter unreasonableness of them.


----------



## Sandals (7 Jul 2012)

mcaul said:


> and the penalty for the shop is they don't get the profit margin that they would have had if they had sold you the product.



But the issue is the shop has told me not only do they have no profit margin but are at a loss already and would be at a further loss if they deliver out my item (I found out it is available myself by ringing the manufacturers). My issue is I wouldnt have thought a shop can just say they are not going to follow through on what they've sold me. This a problem of their own making (of which they have accepted everytime Iv gone in to them, as I said the salesman was shocked and always very apologetic). 

I have been nothing but accommodating, arranging someone (which cost me €40 extra than I would have paid her) to be in the house on the two missed delivery dates, then arranging myself to be home accepting the next delivery, again arranging to have someone home the next day when item went back, four hour round trips to the shop as ringing the shop just didnt work and finally a very expensive phonecall to the manufacturers.


----------



## dmos87 (7 Jul 2012)

Sandals said:


> 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 won't be at any loss as the money paid out is being paid back in. If you are looking for consequential loss, you need to seek compensation from them for the time spent trying to resolve this. Its unfortunate they could not get you the item you wanted, however it was also extremely good of them to offer you the more expensive item for the same price. You paid X amount for the small - this is the contract entered into and all you are entitled to be refunded for by law. 

I get your frustrated, but its not a "Refund" if you never paid it. Stop looking for an extra unwarranted refund, and ask for compensation if you feel hard done by.


----------

