Consumer Rights with fitting out of new apt

Hi All,

Recently moved into my first apartment.. and faced with loads of stresses from the move and sorting everything out. Two queries:

1. We decided to purchase some carpet from a well known carpet shop, however 24 hours later had to cancel it (our choice). I requested the sales guy check and see if he could get us a refund instead of credit note. He came back and offered to 'put the refund through for a charge of €50'. I accepted. He stated it would take 2-3 weeks for the payment to go though. 2 weeks have passed and he called to say refund denied by HQ so we can pickup the carpet... The sales guy gave me the understanding that this was a sure thing and never mentioned that he had to request it and that it might not be approved. Does the oral contract stand in this context as I acecpted the offer to pay consideration of €50 for the refund?

2. We got a tiler in to do our tiling on the floors of the bathroom. He had to lift the toilet to fit the tiles. The pipes to the toilet were boxed in so to tile, he broke this wooden box and said the builders would fix it for us. But the buiders refused. So now we have a broken box in our bathroom. Is the tiler responsible for leaving our bathroom in the condition we gave it to him?

Thanks for all your help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ms X said:

1. We decided to purchase some carpet from a well known carpet shop, however 24 hours later had to cancel it (our choice). I requested the sales guy check and see if he could get us a refund instead of credit note. He came back and offered to 'put the refund through for a charge of €50'. I accepted. He stated it would take 2-3 weeks for the payment to go though. 2 weeks have passed and he called to say refund denied by HQ so we can pickup the carpet... The sales guy gave me the understanding that this was a sure thing and never mentioned that he had to request it and that it might not be approved. Does the oral contract stand in this context as I acecpted the offer to pay consideration of €50 for the refund?

Click to expand...

Surely the original contract to purchase the carpet would take precedence? In this case I assume that the seller is within their rights to refuse a refund or even a credit note. It was a unilateral decision on your part to withdraw from the sale and not because something was wrong/faulty. Is the credit note still an option as it may be your best bet at this stage?

Is the tiler responsible for leaving our bathroom in the condition we gave it to him?

Click to expand...

I would have assumed so.

I expect that tiler must "not act negligently" rather than must "leave the bathroom as he found it". But from your explanation, it sounds like he was negligent

Regarding point 1:
The salesguy is only an agent of the company - so he might not have had the authority to make such a contract. It's a little finicky area regarding who may make representations regarding the extent of the authority of the agent - basically the company may have made an implied representation that the agent had actual authority to make representations about the extent of his authority. So he might have had apparent authority or maybe not. (If he didn't, you could sue him personally in that case for breach of warranty of authority - if you really felt like it).

If he did have authority, then it sounds like a contract to me (i.e. for the consideration of €50, the company gave you the refund - €50 in the form of cash, if I understand correctly).

In relation to the carpet situation.... I took the sales guy's word as fact. Is there a requirement on the customer to check that the person making an offer is in a position to make such an offer? Is it not unreasonable for a customer to have to know each companies internal structures and procedures as to who can and cannot make offers to the customer?

Where could I pursue this? Small Claims Court????

Thanks for the advice!

You do have to "check" if the person making the offer is in a position to do so - that is done by relying on a representation by the company. By putting certain people in certain situations, the company represents that they are able to do certain things. If someone is on the front desk of a McDonalds, wearing a McDonalds uniform, in the view of a director of a McDonalds, then that director is representing that that person is able to take your order etc.
So the company has made some representation regarding the salesguy. The question is what that representation says as to the extent of the authority of that salesguy.
Caselaw is rather contradictory on the point.
There are 2 cases in England which illustrate the point one involved a "regional manager" of a bank, another involved something similar but slightly different - (can't remember exactly), let's call him a "branch manager". In one case the third party (i.e. you) succeeded as it was held that the bank represented that the manager could make representations as to the extent of his authority. In the other the third party failed - as no representation had been made.

There is a certain amount of academic debate about it all - for the reasons you have outlined, it is unfair on a third party. One academic believes that the agent has to be in a position of significant power in the company before he can make such representations. (Which would mean you'd lose). But you could argue that it is within the usual authority of someone in such a position as the salesguy was in. If it is within the usual authority of a salesguy to offer a refund then you are all set. (One other point is you say "he went off and came back and offered a refund - where did he go and to whom did he speak? If he spoke to a person who was higher up, that person was in an even stronger position to make a representation)

Basically the law is rather muddled in this area - I'm not sure anyone can give you a great answer.

Technically someone on the other side (either the salesguy or the company) is liable - if not the company, then the salesguy. If he wasn't able to make such an offer on behalf of the company he should not have made it.