Mistake made on new car order. Poor options given...

[NewVolvo]

Originally Posted by Bill_56

I'm missing something here. Anytime I have ordered a new car, it has been delivered either to my home, or to the franchised dealer with whom I placed the order.

Even if the car were delivered to some interim compound, why would the dealer spend his time and money "going to see it", when he could just wait for the delivery truck?

To be this sounds fishy.....as said above, why would the dealer take time and go and see a car that he can check when it arrives?! Sounds very much to me that he knew (or had a feeling) it was a mistake made and wanted to double check.

Either way, do not accept the extra monthly cost. Two options:
1. Accept the car on condition that dealer swallows the £12/month (its not your mistake!)
2. Let them order a new car and let you have a loaner.

In simple terms, the dealer would be stupid not to swallow the cost of the leather as the cost of giving you a loaner for two months plus the cost of loaner depreciation, insurance etc will be far higher than the cost of the £12!

He's trying you on!

[Thorn]

Originally Posted by Bill_56

I'm missing something here. Anytime I have ordered a new car, it has been delivered either to my home, or to the franchised dealer with whom I placed the order.

Even if the car were delivered to some interim compound, why would the dealer spend his time and money "going to see it", when he could just wait for the delivery truck?

Many dealerships have a compound to which new cars go. There's not room at their showrooms. The cars are checked and prepared at the compound, and brought to the showroom on the day of handover.

[owyn]

Originally Posted by Thorn

You need to write to them giving them the date you want your car by and making time of the essence (use that very phrase).

Be incredibly careful using that phrase, it essentially gives carte blanche to the supplier to do whatever they want (cut corners, take risks, incur costs) as the schedule is important above all else.
In any contract or spec I've ever written I've always avoided saying this even if it's the case.

[Thorn]

Originally Posted by owyn

Be incredibly careful using that phrase, it essentially gives carte blanche to the supplier to do whatever they want (cut corners, take risks, incur costs) as the schedule is important above all else.
In any contract or spec I've ever written I've always avoided saying this even if it's the case.

Nonsense.

[freypal]

To update on this I reiterated that the acceptable options to us were;

1. We take the car but pay no more.
2. We wait for a new order but they loan us a car in the interim period whwre we would have none.

No movement on 1. So they are proceeding with 2. Problem hopefully sorted...

As stated above, this compound is because they don't have room to store it at their dealership until our agreed handover date.

[Grimble]

Originally Posted by Thorn

Nonsense.

'Time is of the essence' is a clause that buyers often try to insert in contracts to suppliers.

One of our absolute golden rules is never, ever agree to a contract with this clause. We work multi-nationally on multi-million $ contracts and always get this clause struck out.

Leaving this in opens us up to unlimited liabilities should we not stick to the absolute letter of the schedule and it gives the buyer enormous power in the contract.

its not something the average person should come across outside working life.

[Thorn]

Originally Posted by Grimble

'Time is of the essence' is a clause that buyers often try to insert in contracts to suppliers.

One of our absolute golden rules is never, ever agree to a contract with this clause. We work multi-nationally on multi-million $ contracts and always get this clause struck out.

Leaving this in opens us up to unlimited liabilities should we not stick to the absolute letter of the schedule and it gives the buyer enormous power in the contract.

its not something the average person should come across outside working life.

The leading case when I studied contract law in the 60s was about the purchase and non-delivery of a car.
It doesn't need to be in the original contract. If the date is open-ended, and the car doesn't arrive within a reasonable time, the buyer can make time of the essence so that he's not hanging on interminably, and so that he can get his deposit back.

[Bill_56]

I used 'time is of essence' once myself, waiting for some furniture to be delivered. They'd said 4-6 weeks which passed, then several more weeks, and still no sign of delivery.

The shop kept apologising, pointing out it was due to the manufacturers. I felt sympathetic, but really wanted a nicer Sofa. So I wrote making Time of The Essence and all of a sudden the problems were overcome, a few days later I was sitting back in my comfy chair.

[wimorrison]

Time is off the essence only has meaning if a date for delivery is specified and the party with the obligation fails to deliver by said date. The party would then be in material breach and the remedies written into the contract would apply.

Stating 'time is of the essence' on its own is meaningless, especially when simply stated in a letter or email.

There are contract terms that do have meanings without dates, and very onerous implications such as the use of 'best' but the term being mentioned here isn't one that causes concern.

Edit: i should have also said that in the case of it being written into a contrsct with a date it only becomes an obligation when the parties sign the contract thus accepting the obligation.

[Bill_56]

Originally Posted by wimorrison

Time is off the essence only has meaning if a date for delivery is specified and the party with the obligation fails to deliver by said date. The party would then be in material breach and the remedies written into the contract would apply.

Stating 'time is of the essence' on its own is meaningless, especially when simply stated in a letter or email.

There are contract terms that do have meanings without dates, and very onerous implications such as the use of 'best' but the term being mentioned here isn't one that causes concern.

Edit: i should have also said that in the case of it being written into a contrsct with a date it only becomes an obligation when the parties sign the contract thus accepting the obligation.

Exactly so, that is why I wrote to the furniture shop, and why I was not surprised ny their response. I am no lawyer but my understanding is, the meaningful wording would be something along the lines...

"You stated the Pizza would be delivered by 8pm. It is now 8:30pm, which I find unacceptable. I am therefore making Time of the Essence in the contract to deliver my Pizza, I am only prepared to will wait until.... etc etc".