we have a website that includes our terms of business (under its own URL and web page), we email a sourcing of goods agreement referencing a web link to those terms of business, and our customer would send us an email confirming go-ahead, and pay us a small 'token' deposit as a commitment to proceed.
We would then look to source the goods from the trade market, and once identified, the customer would confirm the go-ahead to purchase the goods in principle on their behalf.
Our terms state clearly that once we have purchased goods on behalf of customer the token deposit is no longer refundable.
Owing to an unexpected delay in the preparation of the goods, the customer is now demanding their token deposit back in full.
We have reminded them of our terms and they have allegedly spoken with a trading standards office and relayed to us that we are legally duty bound to refund their deposit because our terms and conditions were not provided in a durable format, and they are entitled to a 12 month and 14 day cooling off period.
This customer is trying anything to wriggle out of the sourcing agreement. Can you please advise whether their claim over a technicality would stand up in a UK Court (our website is fully audited, and we can show evidence of any changes to our website).
Hi, thanks for your response,
its a business to consumer transaction, to add another key point, we provided an agreement in pdf format via email, which clearly references to our terms of business from our website, and the customer to go-ahead is required to send us an email confirming their agreement to go-ahead.
Look forwrad to receiving your guidance.
thanks in advance
Hi, no, its a mandate to source them with a used car, we allow mandates to be cancelled and deposits returned in full only where we haven't already purchased a vehicle on behalf of customer, in this case the car has been purchased and is in the process of being prepared for delivery, the customer has not even received the car as yet, again, they are wanting to wriggle out of completing the purchase.
The vehicle sourcing agreement is a pdf document (emailed) which includes a link to our terms of business, which are static on our website.
Hi, thanks, ***** ***** not sure this answers our question, can you please clarify, we have an agreement in pdf that sets out the sourcing mandate, and it references to our terms of business, which is a url link to our website. Website changes are audited, and we can show evidence that these have not been changed in quite some time.
thanks, ***** ***** can prove our terms from website have not changed via an independent audit trail from a global hosting company, should this satisfy a Court ? Plus, with the addition of substantial email dialogue, which clearly provides evidence that customer has always been aware of our terms of business.
thanks, ***** ***** is most helpful.