Hi, I will be happy to assist you, and it is my goal to make you a very satisfied customer! This may take a few minutes, so thanks for your patience.
Did you have a contract with them where you agreed to take oil deliveries for a specified period of time?
No - they solicited me and offered a lower price then charged me more than I was previously paying. In addition I lost my ability to pre-buy for the season thus incurring about $900 in additional heating oil fees.
I was not home when they delivered the oil or I would have stopped them
So they solicited you and you agreed based on the lower price they quoted. Did they then charge you the higher price after the delivery?
yes - so I asked them not to deliver to me again without notification of pricing. A few days later they delivered again at a price about .30 more than I could pay locally just by calling not a pre-by price which would have been about .60 less
Without notifying me
They adjusted the first delivery but would not adjust any other delivery
I was out of the country for a month when the first two deliveries happened
But you never signed anything with them?
It was all done online and on the phone
There was never any agreement for auto delivery
Okay, so you agreed to one delivery. Paid them after adjustment and told them not to make further deliveries. They did anyway and tried to charge you an even higher price. Now they won't make an adjustment. Is that all correct?
No I did pay for the other delivery that came while I was away as well
they refused to adjust that one and that was when I told them not to deliver any more
Okay. Thanks for helping me be clear on the facts. Then you have no contractual obligation to pay them the amount they are trying to charge. There is a legal theory they could use to ask that you pay them a fair price. This is known as unjust enrichment. It's a legal theory that allows compensation to one party when there is no contract because the other party would be unjustly enriched if allowed to keep the benefit of the product received without paying some compensation to the other party. However, it is an equitable principle based on "fairness." Thus, even if you ended up having to pay them something, it would not be more than what you would have paid a third party if they had listened to you and not delivered when they were not supposed to do so.
Can I also ask for the additional amount I had to pay based on their original pricing? I only switched to them based on that - it cost me a lot of extra money
There is a legal argument you can make. You can ask to be compensated based on differences in prices because you relied on their price quote to your detriment. This is known as detrimental reliance. Essentially, it prevents them from charging a higher price than what was quoted and that you based your decision on.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).