21 hours ago
I agreed to repeat orders, did I? Prove it
Suppliers can't force you to pay for goods that you did not explicitly order – thanks to the Consumer Protection Act. Despite that, some companies attempt to force their customers to pay for repeat orders that weren't mentioned in the initial sales call, writes Wendy Knowler.
Thiloshni [name withheld] received a call at the engineering firm she works for some time in March, from a representative of a company called Unlimited Essentials.
She agreed to buy 5 litres of a degreasing product and 5 litres of a cleaning product at a cost of 'R99 a litre, excluding VAT'.
When she asked the woman confirming the order what the total cost would be, the caller responded by saying that she didn't have a calculator 'in front of me'.
So even the way the cost of the order was expressed was disingenuous.
The invoice which Thiloshni received later was in the amount of R1 138.50.
She made payment and thought that was the end of it.
But three months later, the company called back about 'the balance of your order'.
She was told, for the first time, that the 'total quantity' of the order she'd agreed to back in March had not been delivered, and that a repeat order would be sent for payment.
A few days later, Thiloshni forwarded me a letter she'd received from a law firm representing Unlimited Essentials, telling her: 'Our client has fulfilled their obligations under this agreement by ordering and paying for the stock you requested.
'However, we are now informed that you are refusing to accept delivery of the second delivery.
'Please be advised that under the applicable law, including the principles of contract performance and reliance, a confirmed order constitutes a binding commitment.'
Then came the threat: 'Unless we receive confirmation of your acceptance of the goods or full payment for the ordered stock [within] seven days, our client reserves the right to take all necessary legal steps to recover the outstanding amounts, including any legal fees, interest, and costs associated with resale or storage.'
I contacted the firm, saying Thiloshni was adamant that there was no explicit disclosure about what was later claimed to be a repeating order. As such, she only agreed to the initial order of 10 litres of product, and had paid for it.
Plus, the recording of the 'confirmation call' – which I listened to – contains no mention of a second order – not when it would be sent, nor how many orders the company intended to send in total.
'I note that the word 'introductory' was used to describe the order which was agreed to and dispatched,' I said, 'but that cannot be said to imply or confirm disclosure of and agreement to repeat orders'.
On what specific contractual basis, then, did the company and its attorney seek to hold Thiloshni responsible for further deliveries?
Responding, a paralegal said the agent in question referred to sending Thiloshni an 'introduction pack' consisting of two products.
'The phrasing used, such as 'goods on first delivery' cos (SIC) the order was split firstly because she never dealt with Unlimited before.'
'In the interest of resolving the matter fairly and reasonably', she said, the firm was engaging with its client to recommend that no new orders would be processed or invoiced, 'as there is no evidence of informed consent for additional or recurring transactions'.
'My client is also using this opportunity to review internal training and scripting protocols to ensure future communications meet the highest standards of transparency and compliance.'
Let's hope so.
