As I am getting a few names brought forward to name and shame about people not

 

A sending parts out

 

B paying for parts

 

What do you make of this as I think it is the most CRAP excuse so far.

 

This guy pays for some parts back in June and is still waiting,The guy that sold the parts said he did send them and the post office lost them,(this week) some 4 months later he said he would pay 50% of the cash back to the guy that sent the money and got **** all:(

 

Is this a fair thing to do? Or should he give a full refund back?

The law states that the transaction has not been completed untill merchandise has changed hands. This does not include the vendor handing the goods to a 3rd party for transport. If any issues arrive during the transport period of the transaction this is strictly between the vendor and the transporter.

Pailure to supply goods should be

 

A: met with full refund

B: Met with full refund.

 

So if this was to go to a small claims court the judge would make the vendor cough up plus pay expences.

 

this is why all vendors should have this thing called INSURANCE

 

 

sorry that isnt correct - the law states that once it has been posted it is said to have been received - the act of posting is the agreement of the contract.

the is what the "postal Rule" is all about. That is why a letter can be used as an acceptance of contract but a fax cannot.

 

sorry to be pedantic.

 

Regards,

 

alex