The Need for Vigilance When Dealing By Post

Anyone who has the misfortune of seeing daytime television in the UK cannot have failed to notice the glut of “sell your gold!” adverts that plague our airwaves.  The fact that there are now so many of these companies should be warning enough that their customers are not getting a fair deal but now the Office of Fair Trading is investigating, the sheer size of the problem will no doubt soon come to light.

These companies, and others like them in various fields, need to be handled carefully if at all.  They raise the issue of the average British person’s usual lack of knowledge of how the law works and what legal protections there are for dealing at arm’s length.

The Three Stages of Contractual Negotiations

The first thing to bear in mind is the difference between an agreement, an offer and an invitation to treat, because these three things not only form the basis for a contract but are also treated very differently in law.

Contractual negotiations usually begin with an invitation to treat.  Put simply, this is a statement that you are open to negotiations on a certain deal and others are invited to make you an offer.  In the case of one of these gold-buying companies, the invitation to treat would come in two forms: the company advertising its services, and you sending them your gold.

Note that by sending them your gold, you are saying you are interested in selling it if the price is right.  It is important to remember that not only have you yet to state outright that you will sell your gold but you have certainly not agreed on a price for it.  One of the reasons for the OFT’s investigation of these companies is that some companies are apparently trying to make declining their pitiful offers very difficult.

At this stage of the proceedings, you have the right to reject their offers and get your gold back, no questions asked.

The Offer

The offer is when one side states their terms for the deal, and the other side gets to choose whether or not to accept them.  In terms of these gold-buying companies, the offer comes not when the customer sends the gold to the company, but when the company states how much they are willing to pay for the gold that has already been sent.

An offer can be accepted or rejected at any time, unless an agreement has already been reached or the offer has been superseded by another offer (whether better or worse).  Rejecting an offer need not end negotiations and both parties are free to extend further offers to one-another, but once rejected the same offer cannot subsequently be accepted unless it is re-submitted.

At this stage, you still have the right to reject the company’s offer and get your gold back.

When is an Agreement Reached?
An agreement is reached only when both sides accept the terms and agree to be bound by them.  It is as simple as that.  Once an agreement is reached however, it cannot be ended without the consent of both parties.

What If The Company Refuses to Return My Gold?

It is clear from the news reports surrounding the OFT’s investigation that some companies are “not honouring” the customer’s right to refuse their meagre offer (which can be as low as 6% of the true value of the gold) and get their gold back.  Recalling that until an agreement is reached, the customer has the right to refuse the offer to buy, it is clear that the customer still owns the gold until the offer is accepted.

It should therefore be clear that if the customer owns the gold and the company refuses to return it, the company has stolen it.  Their refusal to honour your right to have your property back is therefore a criminal matter.  Discuss it with the police if this happens to you.

In summary, it is clear that vigilance is always necessary when making a transaction; be it to purchase something face to face or at a distance through the post or the Internet.  Get as much information from the other party as possible before handing over your money or property and in the case of selling gold, always look for a better deal than these companies are offering.  After all, if they can make a huge profit from your gold, so can you by cutting out the middle man.

Businessman Who Attacked Burglars Is Freed

As the BBC News is currently reporting, the day after leave to appeal against the conviction of a businessman who attacked and permanently injured a burglar who had tied up his family was refused by the Court of Appeal, the businessman in question has been released.

Munir Hussain has had his sentence reduced from 30 months prison to 12 months, suspended for two years and a supervision order for those two years.  As is common in the UK at present, Mr Hussain’s release is being touted as justice for those who feel it is right to be free to defend one’s family and self in one’s own home.  However, the law already provides for this.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 continues the long and well-established tradition of preventing the prosecution of anyone who employs reasonable force in self-defence; or when attempting to prevent a lawfully arrested person from escaping.

So why was Mr Hussain convicted in the first place?  If his family were tied up by burglars who had broken into his own home, surely he was allowed to defend himself and his family from these criminals?

Well yes, and also no.

The problem is, from what the reports are saying, that he did not just limit himself to defending his family.  He escaped from the burglars, went to his brother and then returned.  The two men then chased the burglars out of the house and set upon them.  This, it seems, is why he and his brother were arrested, tried and convicted.

For the self-defence to be successfully pleaded, one has to be in fear for one’s life, or the life of another.  This has to be an immediate fear, not something that occurred in the past.  Once Mr Hussain left his home to seek his brother’s help, the immediacy of the situation becomes problematic.

In addition, recruiting help to free his family was likely not an unreasonable move.  Who wouldn’t think of going for help if help was nearby?  But to chase someone down and commit serious assault on them once the family were safe?  That goes beyond reasonable self-defence.

Chasing the burglars down and keep them from escaping until the police arrive is, of course, fine and a move that should be applauded.  But beating them to a pulp is, quite simply, not on.