malc d Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Tracker - 2012-11-15 5:23 PM ............................. who better to adjust the spec to suit at cost only than the makers? Yeah, why not - "adjust the spec" Just whip off the upholstery that the new customer doesn't like, and re-cover with something he does like. ( ... and of course plug up the holes where the TV aerial goes through the roof because the new customer doesn't want a TV ). Shouldn't take more than a few days. Simples Plus : They will have to take someone off the ' production line ' to do it - and delay someone else's van. Let's hope they don't mind waiting. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Well having looked at the contract I can guess that Murvi ,are/have been, busy changing all future ones to include the word "estimated" in front of "delivery date". I feel there's been a great deal of naivety on both sides, and I doubt either is satisfied with the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 malc d - 2012-11-15 6:53 PM Tracker - 2012-11-15 5:23 PM ............................. who better to adjust the spec to suit at cost only than the makers? Yeah, why not - "adjust the spec" Just whip off the upholstery that the new customer doesn't like, and re-cover with something he does like. ( ... and of course plug up the holes where the TV aerial goes through the roof because the new customer doesn't want a TV ). Shouldn't take more than a few days. Simples Plus : They will have to take someone off the ' production line ' to do it - and delay someone else's van. Let's hope they don't mind waiting. :-| Now you really are talking a load of spherical objects! There is minimal upholstery in a Murvi and it would cost no more than a few hundred quid at most to reupholster the entire van - remember they would source that upholstery at much less than retail cost. To remove the TV aerial (which they can reuse so it then costs nowt) is simples - and can be easily done in an hour or so with the right kit - which they as converters will have. But why bother - it ain't eating any meat and will add value come resale time? More likely is that they could offer a discount equal to much less than a reasonable retained deposit to a new buyer as an incentive and unless the colour was truly offensive I expect many buyers would be happy with that compromise? Even better to sell the van and deduct any alleged 'loss' against the deposit and refund the balance perhaps? It their alleged waiting list is so long buyers will be forming an orderly queue and biting off the salesman's hands to get hold of such a truly desirable van surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Tracker - 2012-11-15 7:44 PM To remove the TV aerial (which they can reuse so it then costs nowt) is simples - and can be easily done in an hour or so with the right kit......... Would you buy a brand new van with a hole in the roof plugged with a blanking plug? I walked away from one like that which was selling at a quarter the price the OP was spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Tracker - 2012-11-15 7:44 PM malc d - 2012-11-15 6:53 PM Tracker - 2012-11-15 5:23 PM ............................. who better to adjust the spec to suit at cost only than the makers? Yeah, why not - "adjust the spec" Just whip off the upholstery that the new customer doesn't like, and re-cover with something he does like. ( ... and of course plug up the holes where the TV aerial goes through the roof because the new customer doesn't want a TV ). Shouldn't take more than a few days. Simples Plus : They will have to take someone off the ' production line ' to do it - and delay someone else's van. Let's hope they don't mind waiting. :-| Now you really are talking a load of spherical objects! There is minimal upholstery in a Murvi and it would cost no more than a few hundred quid at most to reupholster the entire van - remember they would source that upholstery at much less than retail cost. To remove the TV aerial (which they can reuse so it then costs nowt) is simples - and can be easily done in an hour or so with the right kit - which they as converters will have. But why bother - it ain't eating any meat and will add value come resale time? More likely is that they could offer a discount equal to much less than a reasonable retained deposit to a new buyer as an incentive and unless the colour was truly offensive I expect many buyers would be happy with that compromise? Even better to sell the van and deduct any alleged 'loss' against the deposit and refund the balance perhaps? It their alleged waiting list is so long buyers will be forming an orderly queue and biting off the salesman's hands to get hold of such a truly desirable van surely? You've missed out the bit about someone elses van being delayed while they are re-speccing this one. Cos the other bloke ( possibly a frail pensioner ) gets so annoyed that he cancels his order - can't get his deposit back - and starts another thread on here. That's why it's not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Bulletguy - 2012-11-15 9:02 PM Would you buy a brand new van with a hole in the roof plugged with a blanking plug? I walked away from one like that which was selling at a quarter the price the OP was spending. Done properly nobody would ever know there was a hole and the maker would have all the materials available to do just that. More to the point why bother to remove an item that most buyers would see as an essential asset? Just leave it there and don't use it is the simplest way, as I've already suggested? Holes in the roof are nothing to be frightened of as long as they are properly made and sealed - how else do you think skylights are fitted? I understand the point trying to be made but perhaps the choice of TV aerial was not the best example to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 malc d - 2012-11-15 9:35 PM You've missed out the bit about someone elses van being delayed while they are re-speccing this one. Cos the other bloke ( possibly a frail pensioner ) gets so annoyed that he cancels his order - can't get his deposit back - and starts another thread on here. Oh come on - you really are clutching at straws here - to reupholster a van and remove a TV aerial is hardly a life and death scenario and it probably more the remit of a service department than a production line? No more than two days at the very most - and probably a lot less - hardly going to delay another van by a deal breaking time scale methinks? All it takes is a bit of common sense, give and take, and communication to sort out any issues like this but, without taking anybody's side here, these seem to be old fashioned attributes missing from a lot of people these days and everyone worships the bottom line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhorsf Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I suspect a certain company has had a very expensive couple of grand and would have been better off to have returned the money than all the negative press they have had over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 malc d - 2012-11-15 9:35 PM ....missed out the bit about someone elses van being delayed while they are re-speccing this one. Cos the other bloke ( possibly a frail pensioner ) gets so annoyed that he cancels his order - can't get his deposit back - and starts another thread on here. That's why it's not a good idea. Good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 jhorsf - 2012-11-16 1:25 AM I suspect a certain company has had a very expensive couple of grand and would have been better off to have returned the money than all the negative press they have had over it So they lose £2k more than they have already, and leave it so any timewaster can order a special van, change their mind, and walk away leaving the converter stuck with it. What is the purpose of a deposit? Murvi could have kept the other £3k, and sue Hutchby like Lord Mc Alpine is suing the Twitter posters. If he hadn't reneged on the deal, he also would be £2k better off, with the van his mother wanted, no hassle, and no risk of being sued. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Slightly off topic, but I saw a Range over the other day, on very low profile wheels and tyres. Some people must have thought it looked good, but to me it looked ridiculous. An fine rugged off road vehicle, sitting on wheels and tyres likely to be damaged on anything but a smooth racetrack. It looked so unbalanced I would be embarrassed to be seen driving it.If you don't take a deposit, how can you protect yourself against people ordering a monstrosity like that and walking away when they see it, leaving you stuck with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Peter James - 2012-11-16 9:16 AM If you don't take a deposit, how can you protect yourself against people ordering a monstrosity like that and walking away when they see it, leaving you stuck with it? You employ Tracker, who could put that right in a couple of hours. ( .. and so you don't incur any additional costs, he may even do it without charge ). :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 It's been a very grounding thread. It has served well to reinforce just how thick some people are, and just how much horsesh*t is spouted. Rational argument is lost on the dim-witted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Some of you seem to be losing all perspective on this topic just so that you can argue theoretical, but not always relevant points? The van in question, as I understand it, was far from an outrageous colour and was a perfectly acceptable specification. As such it was probably easily resold given the rules of supply and demand for a seemingly sought after product? However if modifications were needed to suit a new owner the cost of these could reasonably be deducted from the generous deposit taken to reflect out of pocket costs to the converter prior to being properly explained and documented and the balance being refunded. Regardless of what any contract says, and bearing in mind that the supplier has lawyers to draw up his contract whereas the customer only have their own wits and trust to use, forfeiting an entire deposit just so the seller can pocket the lot as extra profit I doubt would be seen as reasonable? The law expects people to act reasonably and that surely is not, on the face of it, reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Please refer to previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Tracker - 2012-11-16 9:52 AM The law expects people to act reasonably ..........................? Precisely. And if you have signed a contract that says you will lose your deposit if you cancel the order - then the law expects you to accept that when you cancel the order, you will lose your deposit. That was the choice of the buyer in this case. The spec of the van, and how easy it was to sell is a separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I am receiving emails saying I have received private messages titled 'Hutchby contract'But I cannot see them in my inbox, so I am none the wiser.To whoever is sending them - why can't you post this contract on here as you have been asked to do many times?Given the amount of information that has already been posted I see no reason why this contract can only be seen in a private message? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Tracker - 2012-11-16 9:52 AM Some of you seem to be losing all perspective on this topic just so that you can argue theoretical, but not always relevant points? The van in question, as I understand it, was far from an outrageous colour and was a perfectly acceptable specification. As such it was probably easily resold given the rules of supply and demand for a seemingly sought after product? However if modifications were needed to suit a new owner the cost of these could reasonably be deducted from the generous deposit taken to reflect out of pocket costs to the converter prior to being properly explained and documented and the balance being refunded. Regardless of what any contract says, and bearing in mind that the supplier has lawyers to draw up his contract whereas the customer only have their own wits and trust to use, forfeiting an entire deposit just so the seller can pocket the lot as extra profit I doubt would be seen as reasonable? The law expects people to act reasonably and that surely is not, on the face of it, reasonable? Isn't that what Murvi did? So why did Hutchby start his campaign if not an attempt to blackmail Murvi into giving him the other £2k, leaving them even further out of pocket? (I bought a van (cancelled order) with factory extras on it I don't really want, so they had to be thrown in free gratis.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spospe Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 People please! I only asked a simple question: "When did Murvi go?" Perhaps we should all draw a breath and drop the subject, as now it is generating heat, but little (new) light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 jhorsf - 2012-11-16 1:25 AM I suspect a certain company has had a very expensive couple of grand and would have been better off to have returned the money than all the negative press they have had over it You may well be right - but, on the other hand, some might argue that Murvi have come out of it quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertandjean Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Don't often get involved with threads about PVC's but happened on this by clicking wrong thread! Having read through would make 2 points. 1. First pleased that mum of OP is now sorted out as she clearly, given what had happened in her life, did not need all these problems. 2. The one poster who really seems to have got the right perspective on this is Eddie (Judgemental). Now, as many know, do not always see eye to eye on things but this time he is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 One thing that seems to have been overlooked, is the nature of a deposit. It is, in effect, a part payment under the contract for what is ordered. It is taken to ensure, on the part of the seller, that the buyer has a serious intent of buying. It gives the seller the confidence to commit materials and resources to making what the buyer wants. As pointed out elsewhere, it is of no significance insofar as the contract is concerned, the words alone establish the existence of the contract. In effect, it provides the contractor with limited protection against loss. There are no stage payments as the build progresses, only a final payment on completion. There is obvious risk to the contractor with this arrangement, as there is risk to the buyer. Where goods are "on the shelf", and require only preparation before delivery, there is no necessity to take or give a deposit (though a nominal sum is frequently requested). Where the realisation of the goods first requires the seller to make substantial payments himself, meaning he would be seriously out of pocket were the buyer to renege, an initial payment is not uncommon. There is a very wide range of variants on the Ducato that can be added as options: these are not cars, they are very basic commercial vehicles with very basic specifications in standard form. No converter could possibly stock vans in all colours, with all combinations of options available for each colour, he would need to hold thousands of vehicles to do so. In this case the converter offers a bespoke service allowing his customer to specify the van he wants, and the conversion he wants, in considerable detail. It is the difference between buying a house from a developer, and buying a plot of land and employing an architect to design the house, and a builder to construct it. One way you get what is available, the other you get what you want, but it carries higher risks and costs more. To some this is mad, to others it is what they prefer. It may be that the seller's right to retain the whole of the deposit if the buyer reneged could be legally challenged. But, that would also be a risk for the buyer. On the one hand, if the contractor disposed of the goods at a good price and at minimal cost to himself, he could possibly be obliged to return the balance to the buyer, as eventually happened in this case. On the other hand, if the seller incurred substantial costs in disposing of the van, and had to sell at a sharply reduced price, I think he would be legally entitled to additional payment from the buyer, to cover his losses. He might also be entitled to claim his court costs. The problem, in the particular case, is that the buyer clearly did not understand which kind of product (the bespoke variety) she was buying, the irrevocable commitment she was entering into, the implicit risks to her, or the disciplines the contract imposed. Why this was not appreciated, only she can know. It may be that even now she still does not fully grasp what she did, or why it was the wrong way to go. Both parties believe they were acting reasonably, but clearly one was not. That is the classic dispute. To settle such disputes, ultimately, is why we have courts. In the end, after the shouting, common sense prevailed, and the matter was more or less amicably settled. I think the settlement fair, though the buyer, and some others, clearly still do not. I think it fair because, once the buyer has signed the contract, the contractor is entitled to anticipate the whole of his profit on the deal. If the seller breaches, he is also entitled to claim his costs, including the cost of his time in dealing with the consequences of the breach. Does anyone seriously believe the contractor's expected profit, plus his actual costs in dealing with the breach, would have been less than £2,000? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Peter James - 2012-11-16 10:42 AM I am receiving emails saying I have received private messages titled 'Hutchby contract' But I cannot see them in my inbox, so I am none the wiser. To whoever is sending them - why can't you post this contract on here as you have been asked to do many times? Given the amount of information that has already been posted I see no reason why this contract can only be seen in a private message? Don't try and get it throu PM, in my experiance it won't work, click on 'problem murvi's email link button and then you will be able to send an email and he will be able to send in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Brian Kirby - 2012-11-16 7:03 PM The problem, in the particular case, is that the buyer clearly did not understand which kind of product (the bespoke variety) she was buying, the irrevocable commitment she was entering into, the implicit risks to her, or the disciplines the contract imposed. Brian, the contract quite clearly states the delivery date as being July, there is no get out clauses included, so I would suggest Murvi where the ones who didn't understand what contract they had issued, now I understand your case of force majure , and no doubt Murvi believe a court would side with them. Myself I think a 5 week delay is unfortunate as it was over summer, but acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 colin - 2012-11-16 7:43 PM Brian Kirby - 2012-11-16 7:03 PM The problem, in the particular case, is that the buyer clearly did not understand which kind of product (the bespoke variety) she was buying, the irrevocable commitment she was entering into, the implicit risks to her, or the disciplines the contract imposed. Brian, the contract quite clearly states the delivery date as being July, there is no get out clauses included, so I would suggest Murvi where the ones who didn't understand what contract they had issued, now I understand your case of force majure , and no doubt Murvi believe a court would side with them. Myself I think a 5 week delay is unfortunate as it was over summer, but acceptable. A few points of law to understand here: AIUI, whilst in the absence of any words to the contrary the delivery date might be interpreted as firm, rather than an estimate, in the specific absence of a "time is of the essence" clause, failure to meet that date is not necessarily going to be a breach, and ultimately the courts would have to decide on the contractual effects of any delay. IMO, a delay of 5 weeks on an order placed 9 months before is very unlikely to be considered a breach, particularly if the manufacturer can demonstrate the reason it has pleaded in this case. Also, AIUI, in English law force majeure is only taken into account if the contract has clauses that specifically mention it. (i.e. it is not in play by default in English contract law). Effectively, the common practice of putting force majeure clauses in a contract allows the parties to pre-agree on the position if certain "unmanageable" circumstances arise, thereby negating the need to go to the courts for a decision on how they should be treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.