increasing price after purchase

[Dom C.]

What is the name of your state? Connecticut
I purchased a piece of wood furniture from a retailer for the amount they asked $389 (original price of $549 less a 29% discount). I put down a $150 deposit as the furniture needed to be ordered (8-10 weeks). I received a receipt describing the transaction and the credirt card receipt for the payment. Four days later my wife called to see if the order had been placed and if not, if she could change the finish of the wood. It had not been ordered yet and they could change the finish at no additional cost. We were faxed a confirmation showing the change in finish, but the confirmation showed the original price with no discount. I followed up with the retailer to clear the discrepancy and they are now informing me that they should have never sold the furniture at the reduced price and they will not honor the original sale. I am wondering if I can 1) force them to fulfill the original sale or 2) purchase the same peice at another retailer, at the incresed price, and have them pay me the difference of the original sale and the increased sale.
Thanks for the help!

 

[racer72]

1. No.

2. No.

 

[Dom C.]

why not?

 

[Terry7]

Inform them you want your deposit back at once.
How was the deposit made ?
If CC ,have the CC Co. put stop payment on the deposit,explain your reason,as they said ,they never should have offered the funtiture at discount, so they breached the contract.
If CC CO. already made payment,make complaint with them,to get your CC re-embursed by the furniture Co.
Too bad you didn't stick w/ original finish,the sale might have gone through as agreed.

 

[Dom C.]

the retailor has offered to refund the CC deposit, so I am not worried about gettting that back. I would like to know if they breached the contract, and I think you already answered that in your response. So if they have breached then shouldn't I be able to force performance or at least receive monetary compensation to make me whole according to the original agreement? if not, why not?

 

[Terry7]

I can't answer that in legal terms,maybe someone else can ?
I am curious what your original receit stated ?
$150.00 deposit ? Total $ 389.00 ?
Seeing the furinuture had not been ordered yet ,and you were not in possession of it,they may have a legal right to resind.
If you already had it in your posession and paid for with the receit,and they overcharge your CC ,you could then dispute it through the CC co.

 

[AmateurShyster]

You are entitled to the benefit of the bargain you made.

Ask for your deposit back and make clear that you do not want the furniture at the undiscounted price. Since the furniture is being specially ordered for you and might not be suitable for sale to someone else, you want to be sure you don't end up being forced to pay the higher price just because the dealer ends up completing the order.

Take a close look at the refund check before you cash it. According to Sec. 42a-3-311 of the CT statutes, if the check or a document accompanying the check contains "a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction" of your claim, you don't dare cash the check. In this situation, obtain a quote from another dealer and take the original dealer to small claims court asking for your deposit back and for the difference between the quote and the original discounted price.

If the refund check doesn't have that kind of wording on it, sign the check "without prejudice" before cashing it. Then go ahead and buy the furniture from another dealer and sue in small claims court for the difference in price.

I don't think you can make the original dealer fulfill the order unless there's something unique about the furniture such that you can only get it through him. Besides, he might screw the order up somehow.

Here's how I would analyze the transaction. You and the original dealer made a contract for the sale of goods at the discounted price. You subsequently made an oral agreement to modify that contract. Since the originally agreed price of the goods is under $500, the contract as modified is still enforceable even though the modification was not in writing. The confirmation you received from the dealer was an offer to enter into a new contract at a higher price, and you rejected that offer. The original contract remained in force.

The original dealer has breached the contract by refusing to perform at the agreed price. You are entitled to make what's called a "cover" purchase to obtain the same goods from someone else. The original dealer is then liable for the difference between the contract and cover prices, as well as for forseeable incidental damages.

Even if your lawsuit doesn't work out, you end up with the furniture at what's presumably a reasonably fair price.

 

[AmateurShyster]

A follow-up: if you just innocently ask to have your credit card credited for the deposit, you can probably avoid all the hassles that might be associated with a refund check.

 

[JETX]

"I am wondering if I can 1) force them to fulfill the original sale"
*** Not without extensive delay and probable litigation (not in small claims court).

"2) purchase the same peice at another retailer, at the incresed price, and have them pay me the difference of the original sale and the increased sale."
*** Yes, you can do this. But, again, there is some risk. Simply, you have a contract at a set price. If they breach that contract, you can purchase the EXACT SAME item (and that is the risk) and then file a small claim action against them to recover your damages (the additional costs you incurred in remedying their breach). The issue will be that it MUST be the exact same piece... and that means in the same finish as original (to match your receipt). If you were to purchase the item to match your change in finish, you would likely only be able to recover the cost shown on the change FAX.

 

[AmateurShyster]

Article 2 of the UCC does not require that the OP buy the exact same piece at all. This is governed by section 2-712(1): "After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may 'cover' by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller".

The official comment to this section makes clear that "[t]he definition of 'cover' . . . envisages . . . goods not identical with those involved but commercially usable as reasonable substitutes under the circumstances of the particular case . . .."

 

[JETX]

"goods not identical with those involved but commercially usable as reasonable substitutes under the circumstances of the particular case "

And if the items are NOT identical, the OP takes a risk that the court would not agree that the replacement item was a 'reasonable substitute'. Simply, you can't replace a breached Cavalier with a Cadillac and hope the court feels it is a 'reasonable substitute'. You eliminate the risk of that interpretation by purchasing the EXACT same item elsewhere.

We all have to remember we are dealing with 'laypersons' here who may not have the legal knowledge to argue 'equitable' products.

 

[Dom C.]

thanks for the help and it is great to hear that I am right and that bringing this to small claims court isn't a waste of time.

 

[JETX]

"it is great to hear that I am right and that bringing this to small claims court isn't a waste of time."
*** Reality check. We have only heard one side of this story and as such, my OPINION is just that. It is NO assurrance or guarantee that you "are right". Only that you MIGHT be right. Further, whether "bringing this to small claims court" may or may not be a waste of time.

Simply, you are right in legal theory. Before you go out and take the RISK of purchasing elsewhere, I would make every effort to resolve this with the original seller... including advising them in writing of your intent to pursue purchase elsewhere and possible legal action to recover your 'damages'.