Unfair Clauses in correspondence

I am attempting to obtain a refund from a trader from whom we ordered one lipstick but who actually altered the order to three and charged us accordingly.
That is just the background - the unreasonable terms are contained in a rider added to every communication from the Seller as follows:-

This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately. Any information, statements or opinions contained in this message (including any attachments) are given by the author. They are not given on behalf of the company unless subsequently confirmed by an individual other than the author who is duly authorised representative.

What that last sentence says is that the person who is negotiating with me will not be backed by his Company if they don’t like what he may agree with me!
How do I get round that statement - he signs himself as a member of their “Customer Team” - so what is the legal validity of the disclaimer following his signature?

1 Like

It sounds like a standard signature added to a business email, when such emails may be used for business or personal purposes. The statement covers them when the email is used for other than ‘official’ business purposes.

The sentence is poorly structured… possibly on purpose.

I think it should be,

They are not given on behalf of the company unless subsequently confirmed by an individual, other than the author, who is duly authorised representative.

It would be assumed that a ‘Customer Team’ member is an authorised representative of the business able to communicate on behalf of the business with customers.

If this isn’t the case, then their customer service isn’t a service.

Who is the trader/retailer?

1 Like

Did you pay by credit card? If so, you may deem that the charge to your card was unauthorised. It may be worthwhile attempting to get the charge reversed with your card provider.

Do you have solid evidence that you ordered a quantity of one? showing the amount that should have been correctly charged? e.g. confirmation of order from the vendor? screenshot?

I don’t think it really matters. Regardless of what you agree, what matters is whether what you agreed actually happens.

Is this company overseas because what is written doesn’t even fully make sense? As written you could get into an infinite iteration of every email requiring subsequent confirmation. :wink:

It could be that front-line customer service is outsourced and then, up to a point, the disclaimer (if it had been properly worded) is reasonable.


Another thing to check was there a minimum order size…either in number or monetary value. They may have a minimum order of say 3 lipsticks or say minimum order value of $X (which equates to roughly 3 lipsticks). If you had information during the purchase process (it might have been there but not read/noticed) and agreed with the purchase based on the available information, it may affect your ability to have a successful chargeback. It is worth checking T&Cs if this was the case as they might outlined what happens if a minimum order isn’t made at the time of purchase.

I have seen minimum order numbers and amounts from time to time when shopping online. Their ordering system may be rudimentary where it allows purchases to be made less than that outlined during the purchase process.


I agree with the other comments on this matter. None of this paragraph makes any sense. Unless you’re the company’s lawyer, legal professional privilege doesn’t apply. The person you have been corresponding with is representing the company so the last 2 sentences don’t apply, even if they did make sense. I suspect they saw a similar paragraph in an email from someone else, thought it looked impressive and tried to incorporate it into their own correspondence. Just ignore it and good luck. :crossed_fingers: