I wonder if I can use the same technique for settling my bills when I buy things from Amazon?
Amazon has presented irate distributors and vendors with a deal that will see them receive some payment for historical disputed deliveries stretching back a year. As we exclusively revealed last month, suppliers are battling the retail giant to get paid for orders they claimed were delivered from the spring of 2015. The …
You mean wait a full year and then only pay a part?
This is simply the ultimate consequence of what MBAs get taught: any delay on payment you can get off a vendor is free credit, but it results in a chain of late payments elsewhere and not all suppliers have that sort of liquidity.
That is why we now work with partial pre-payment - we have others to pay, and I refuse to victimise others.
If it's a statutory demand, then it will become so very simple.
Amazon dispute it based on having a new faulty IT system (which is not a lawful reason for not paying a supplier!) and the supplier provides the order from amazon, their invoice and shipping information proving the goods were sent. Amazon then have nowhere to go, but payment of the bill or being dissolved as a company as being insolvent.
When I last took someone to court over a disputed debt, the judges opinion was that the dispute was irrelevant because the company I sued took 6 months to dispute the invoice. From what I understand of this case, the dispute took much longer than that.
Similarly a one way dispute is not a dispute, i.e. the supplier has a purchase order, a delivery note, a signed for, a proof of delivery, and Amazon's reply is simply "this is in dispute" it isn't in dispute. A court wants to see evidence of a 2 way discourse in a dispute. Stonewalling often ends up with the person being sued, losing.
Might depend who you are exactly dealing with, eg
"These conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the application of the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded"
Might depend who you are exactly dealing with
AC those conditions only apply when you purchase stuff from Amazon, when you're selling stuff to Amazon, the purchase order will provide full details of the legal entity buying stuff from you. If it doesn't and you don't know who that is then you are asking to be shafted...
The courts of England And Wales are of the opinion that the courts of England and Wales decide which courts have jurisdiction to hear cases, not contracts. This argument has been thrown out many times when a company has tried to point to a T&C to say a particular court does not have jurisdiction.
And it doesn't matter what it says on paper.
Contracts are NOT the be-all-and-end-all of law.
If you're supplying a good and not being paid for it, you are perfectly in your right to just take it to court, which is perfectly in its right to order you to have your goods forcibly taken back and returned to you.
I can make you sign, consensually, a contract which says that you'll never, ever, ever do X. It doesn't mean ANYTHING if that X is given to me by the law anyway. Do you not recognise the line "This does not affect your statutory rights"? They don't even need to say it. Because NOTHING affects your statutory rights.
And not being paid for goods/services rendered is breach of contract (possibly even implied contract) and/or theft.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019