Amounts to the same thing because the OP is in business so no consumer protection, and the description is second old cable.
Doncaster Cables
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Yes perhaps in this case if he was buying it for business use rather than for private use.
I made the comment purely because you often see the term "sold as seen" on sales and it has no legal meaning though.
There are lots of comments and anomalies where folks make mistakes when selling or buying as a consumer. Example the term "Estimate" is fairly obvious but the term "Quote" is just the same, whereas a "fixed price" is something different but folk often assume quote or quotation to mean a fixed price.
It`s the same example of mistakes as when folk try to put an extra term into a contract when issuing a receipt, any term in a receipt is not valid unless both parties specifically agree, the contract is already locked by the time the receipt is issued and any extra condition would not be valid, one example of that would be "Deposit non refundable". Neither party can add a condition to the contract once that contract is made.
How often do you see, once you get a parking ticket, "Ticket non transferable" on the ticket/receipt but nowhere else before you pay for such ticket? It has not become a condition by the wording on the receipt alone.
You often see on business premises etc "No liability is accepted for XXXX" it is not up to that party to accept liability for it to become valid, generally they are either liable or not liable for certain things and no notice to the contrary removes that.
Particular example is signage at car parks, the company are liable for their actions or omissions of their employees and their agents and must take reasonable care, if they charge you for that service then additional care is also expected too, obviously they can not be expected to be responsible for things that are out of their reasonable control though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
Well, the chap has refunded the cost.
It's all good, man.
It's all good, man.
True, but i would think that there is a lot of scope for debate/argument about "out of their reasonable control". There are obviously steps that the owner of a car park could take to reduce the risk of theft/damage caused by third parties, but it would probably be difficult to find a consensus about which of those steps they could "reasonably be expected to take".
It probably gets more complicated if there is no explicit change for parking - which is often the case, for example, for guests and customers of hotels and shops etc. In that situation, in the absence of a 'consideration' (charge) I imagine that there is no contract, so I'm not sure if/how the owner of the car park can impose any 'conditions'. However, people who moan about that might be advised to 'be careful', because the owner of a piece of land being offered for free use as a car park by guests/customers (as a 'convenience' for them) are presumably free to withdrwa that facility if they so wish.
Kind Regards, John
Agreed. But they should take "reasonable" control at all times and that reasonable threshold is moved up a bit if they are charging you for it too.
Your "consideration" comment too has implications.
Remember the comment I made a while back and someone I knew gave free TVs along with his intruder alarm package.
A long time ago I spoke with Trading Standards about some matters that interested me and this sort of thing was mentioned.
Unless, for example, I give members of the public something free (without any conditions) then it is not free - if I give a "Free TV" to my next 100 customers who get me to supply and install an intruder alarm system the the TV set is "conditional upon purchase" therefore not free but part of the package, all warranties and rights are bestowed upon the whole package not just the alarm but the TV set itself, indeed that customer might have considering a few prices from different traders and decided mine (whether more expensive or less expensive) and the TV set was the one they decided upon.
I would guess that the pub car park, if intended for customers, would be in the same category say if anyone can park only minimal liability but if it is for customers only no matter how much spent then it becomes part of that package consideration and has added value, indeed it is the owner who makes that additional benefit available to their customers as an added enticement instead of going to the pub next door and therefore sells more beer and meals as a direct result of providing the car park.
Indeed. I imagine that 'a charge' can appreciably impact on what 'reasonable' expectations there are of the supplier.
It does. Although I'm surrounded by them in my family, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that to be valid, any contract for the provision of products or services has to involve what the law calls "a consideration" (usually a payment) in return for the provision of the products/services.
However, as you imply, even in the absence of a contract, there are still issues of interest to Trading Standards (e.g. "fitness for purpose") and safety etc. (e.g. "duties of care").
However [2], as you also say, the issue of whether or not there is a 'consideration' is not necessarily at all straightforward. As you say, it's possible for a service or product to be provided apparently 'free of charge' if it is only offered (without extra charge) to someone already paying fro something (e.g. 'free car parking' only for those who have paid for hotel accommodation, or "free additional products" only for those who have paid for some other product). I haven't got a clue as to whether the law would then say that there was then an implicit contract in relation to the 'free' service/product, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
Once there is a contract,that opens the possibility for it to contain conditions which go beyond (but presumably cannot 'dilute') the 'statutory rights' which would exist without a contract.
Kind Regards, John