Deposit refund

I want to remove a post from under my house and place a suitable beam in between the two remaining posts
to give me a totally clear good space.

with this in mind I have been looking for suitable beams. I found one at a demo yard that may have fitted the bill
so I asked if they would take a $10 holding deposit ( that was all the cash I had on me! ). I made it clear I would
only buy the beam if it proved suitable. Yep, that was OK. Deposit made and off I went with my receipt.

I determined that this beam wasn't suitable and today - 2 days later. Went to let them know this so that it could be
sold to someone else and asked for my deposit to be refunded.

The young fellow went to see the boss and came back to say it wasn't policy to refund deposits but they would refund
me anyway.

As far as I'm concerned this is a policy and totally unlawful. Am I correct in thinking so??

It sounds a bit dodgy to me. Some compaines charge a restock fee for returns. If you deside you dont want something and they have to put it back on their shelves I have heard of a 10% restock fee ... not sure if the are allowed to or not.

Under the circumstances mentioned it would seem to me they had no grounds what so ever to suggest no refund


Dave the turning cowboy

turning wood into art

I guess it's all in the terminology.

In a prior life I worked for a joinery and they had two different ways of entering such in the books. If the money was put down with intent to purchase, it was clearly listed as a deposit.

In your case they would've listed as a "holding fee." ie. they'd hold it for you until you made up your mind one way or t'other. If you went ahead with the purchase, the holding fee was deducted off moneys owing.

If you changed your mind and didn't go ahead with the purchase, it was NOT ordinarily refundable. The way it was explained to me was it stopped certain people (read: competitors up the road) from placing large, tentative, orders that tied up any pre-made stock at hand for days at a time.

IF this is all explained to the customer at the time of order, I see no problems with the concept in practise.

I guess this can work both ways though; against the unscrupulous "customer" or for an unscrupulous salesman. You got a refund without argument, so I wouldn't complain about it at all. :shrug:

Sounds like you were lucky to get your cash back. Here's a link to QLD fair trading.http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/Co...Smart.pdfLooks like the business decides and the onus is on you to ask first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

As far as I'm concerned this is a policy and totally unlawful. Am I correct in thinking so??

---

In my mind they should have been able to keep the $10 holding deposit.

By placing a hold on the item you are preventing the seller from selling to anybody else who might be interested.
If you do end up purchasing then that isn't a problem.
If you don't end up purchasing then the seller has perhaps lost other opportunities to sell the item (because it was on hold for you).
I see the holding deposit as purchasing some time to make a decision.

If you are asking for your holding deposit back the transaction is a one way street in your favour. If you are not willing to loose your holding deposit should you not end up wanting the item then you shouldn't be putting a deposit on it at all and just leave it up to chance that it will not sell before you make your decision.

Not having a go at you but this would be my understanding of a holding deposit.

OK. Interesting replies.

Where does this sit in relation to Federal Law??

if it was the old bloke, that ran the red shed in marybough many years back, you be lucky to get anything back or get all the timber you paid for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opelblues2

if it was the old bloke, that ran the red shed in marybough many years back, you be lucky to get anything back or get all the timber you paid for

---

No. Different place, and not in town.

Federal Law doesn't say anything about deposits/refunds. Does talk about misleading conduct etc.

It really gets down to what the original agreement was

If you'd said "holding deposit and it's refundable if not suitable' and they took it on that basis
then no problem

I fully agree with your point Stinky, which is why I made the stipulation about holding and suitability.

It is also why I acted quickly - 2 days.

The receipt should tell the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

I fully agree with your point Stinky, which is why I made the stipulation about holding and suitability.

It is also why I acted quickly - 2 days.

---

I didn't intend my comment to be a direct focus on your situation, the intention of my comments were more of my understanding of a holding deposit. If they said that they would refund the deposit should the product not be suitable, then that is what they should have done, no questions asked.

It sounds a little like a case of poor staff training on the policy. From what the boss is saying it sounds like the general policy would be to keep the deposit. It may have been the case that you were simply told incorrect information in relation to their system, and to their credit they followed the advice that you were given (even if it wasn't to standard policy).

I still feel that keeping a holding deposit is warranted should the purchase not go ahead - but not so in your case where you were advised otherwise.

Cheers

Stinky

I love this stuff, for it's really simple.

You say you had a receipt? And you paid a cash deposit? Then you have a contract.

This is as basic as it gets in contract law. You would be fully entitled to extract from them the full cost of replacement as a breach of contract. Depending on the value of the item, small claims would be a good start. It would take about 3 minutes of the courts time.

If its more and depending on how vigorous you want to be, you could also claim other compensatory damages.

Again, it depends if you are an agro person, but the law on this is absolutely clear.

Thanks Stinky, I know you were not having a shot at me and I'm sorry if my reply gave you that impression.

I Think you are right concerning the staff training piece. Like many of these businesses they get the staff they pay for
and then don't think to train them.

I think some sort of written notice by way of sign would also be in order.


Evanism, what you say is also true. Thankfully this didn't get aggro so it was easy enough.