Ebuyer - one for the armchair kegal experts...

Ian Stirling wrote:
Linker3000 wrote:

You should have made adequate provision for the projector

We did - we ordered from a supplier who stated by email that they could
deliver an in stock item on Saturday.


No, they diddn't.
"your items have been dispatched for delivery, and should be with you by
your chosen delivery date".

Should, not will.

Your point being?

'Should'

Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:

1. Something that will take place or exist in the futu We shall
arrive tomorrow.
2. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation:
You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall
not exceed two years in prison.
3. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go
out if I feel like it.
4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.

Nothing vague about that it's a definite.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:36:22 +0100, Linker3000
wrote:



Received confirmation of order and at least two emails stating goods
will be received on or by required delivery date.


Did you explicitly make it clear on the order that time was of the
essence by writing something like "This order is required for a
presentation to be given on..... and it is a condition of the order
that the goods be delivered by....."

Did Ebuyer explicitly accept your alteration to their standard T&C's?


Do we have a case for breach of contract since they confirmed by email
they would deliver as requested?


Not unless you explicitly made time of delivery a essential part of
the order and Ebuyer accepted it on this condition.

We clicked a button to order a service called 'Saturday delivery', which
was accepted and confirmed by email from Ebuyer - I would suggest that
the conscious action of choosing a specific delivery timeframe makes it
an implicit part of the contract that the order is fulfilled in its
entirety by the requested date - I don't make it a habit of clicking
buttons marked 'I'll pay 29.99 for Saturday delivery but if the goods
happen to arrive by the following Weds that's OK and keep the extra charge.

I paid for a service, eBuyer confirmed they could deliver that service
and then failed to do so. Fair enough their courier may have cocked up
but that's not my fault - unless of course their T&Cs define the courier
as my agent and not theirs - hmm...off to check. I might throw the
issue of choosing delivery slots over to uk.legal

As it happens, we persuaded the hotel to drop their hire charges for the
LCD projector and so we're not out of pocket now so the issue's sorta
gone away.

"Linker3000" wrote in message
Ian Stirling wrote:
Linker3000 wrote:

You should have made adequate provision for the projector

We did - we ordered from a supplier who stated by email that they could
deliver an in stock item on Saturday.

No, they diddn't.
"your items have been dispatched for delivery, and should be with you by
your chosen delivery date".

Should, not will.

Your point being?

'Should'

Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:

4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.

Nothing vague about that it's a definite.

All the above demonstrates "shall", not "should" ;

It /should/ arrive tomorrow, but /may not/. (indefinite)
It /shall/ arrive tomorrow, and /will/. (definite)

--
Mike

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:21:58 UTC, Linker3000
wrote:

We clicked a button to order a service called 'Saturday delivery', which
was accepted and confirmed by email from Ebuyer - I would suggest that
the conscious action of choosing a specific delivery timeframe makes it
an implicit part of the contract that the order is fulfilled in its
entirety by the requested date - I don't make it a habit of clicking
buttons marked 'I'll pay 29.99 for Saturday delivery but if the goods
happen to arrive by the following Weds that's OK and keep the extra charge.

They should refund the additional charge, but you didn't make time of
the essence so I think you're on shaky ground compensation-wise.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:12:34 UTC, Linker3000
wrote:

No, they diddn't.
"your items have been dispatched for delivery, and should be with you by
your chosen delivery date".

Should, not will.

Your point being?

'Should'

Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:

1. Something that will take place or exist in the futu We shall
arrive tomorrow.

(etc.)

So why do you show a definition for 'shall'?

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:21:58 +0100, Linker3000
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Not unless you explicitly made time of delivery a essential part of
the order and Ebuyer accepted it on this condition.

We clicked a button to order a service called 'Saturday delivery', which
was accepted and confirmed by email from Ebuyer - I would suggest that
the conscious action of choosing a specific delivery timeframe makes it
an implicit part of the contract that the order is fulfilled in its
entirety by the requested date

Depends on their T&C's. If it didn't arrive on time you are
certainly entitled to a refund of any extra charges made for a
specific delivery but you are _not_ entitled to consequential loss
damages unless _you_ have made timely delivery an explicit contract
condition and the supplier has positively accepted it.

I paid for a service, eBuyer confirmed they could deliver that service
and then failed to do so.

So you are entitled to a refund of any payment you made for
accelerated delivery - nothing more.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Cpt Jack Sparrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:08:05 +0100, "Mike" wrote:

Do we have a case for breach of contract since they confirmed
by email they would deliver as requested?

No.
Why does everyone want to sue everyone these days!

because it's about time the sellers realised that the buyers have
rights now and can't be ripped off

If the customer had specified that they wanted a guaranteed delivery with
penalty clauses, they would've been quoted a fair price for that. Plenty
of firms will supply AV kit on that basis. No-one should reasonably expect
a cut-price box-shifter to provide rolls-royce service.

Cpt Jack Sparrow wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:14:41 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:

When did you last time come to work late because you were held
up in traffic. I hope your employer sues you! Of course you can
always take the reg numbers of the cars that wasted your time
and pass the buck...

mmm ok, hope the medication kicks in soon

Why the sarcasm - it's a breach of contract, and the employer must therefore
be entitled to sue you for the cost of arranging a temporary replacement
worker....