Zanussi Integrated dishwasher - £94 delivered @ B&Q Possible misprice

taxiphil

It's hard to see how an identical claim could possibly fail in court if people follow the blueprint which has been extensively covered in this thread.. i.e. damages for loss of bargain available under common law, measurement defined in SoGA (difference between contract price and market price), B&Q's exclusion clause unlawful under UCTA & UTCCRs, etc. For anyone wishing to sue, all the information you need is in this thread, just sift through it.

But like I said earlier, they are now settling in full before hearings take place, more info on this to follow soon.

TBeckett100

...and the discretion definition argument which was the main crux. According to the web, the rep from B&Q has experience in law and Trading Standards so the UTCCR being CRIMINAL law was a bit of a blooper

lawsofnature

I'll happily admit I'm wrong - well done Beckett (and I would have done that without the need to be listed like a naught schoolgirl by TaxiPhil :rolleyes:).

But Beckett, could you explain a bit more about the 'discretion' clause issue?

If I recall correctly, the argument presented on this thread was that the 'discretion' clause was an unfair term, but when you've raised the discretion point, you've said (or the judge has interpreted) that the clause could not be relied on because there was no stock available, thus no discretion...is this right? And if so (great argument), but did the judge address the point generally as to whether the term was unfair?

BTW...was the 'trading law manager' a lawyer? It's a bit cheap of a mulitnational company not to send an actual lawyer.

Tinman

taxiphil wrote: »

I wonder if any of the following people have got the balls to admit they were wrong?.....

Now you have definately got too much time on your hands.:rotfl:

Silk

Tinman wrote: »

"loss of bargain"


:rotfl::rotfl:

Do you mean like having time to make these sort of posts

Funny how some people find it hard to admit they were wrong and try and hide it by carrying on mocking people :rolleyes:

Sid_Harper

Well done TBeckett I was on the cusp of instigating something similar against an etailer recently but they magically got the goods to me (I ended up with 2 laptops as I bought one from elsewhere in the meanwhile). I too am very curious to understand the bit about 'discretion' and whether or not in fact it was considered to be an unfair term.

I think it is unfair to be able to undo a contract after the very point that a contract is formed (payment taken/order accepted as the case may be in any given situation) and I was going to take this very point up in my claim.

Toto

taxiphil wrote: »

I wonder if any of the following people have got the balls to admit they were wrong?.....

I will hold my hands up and say I was wrong and happy to be proved so. Well done on winning your claim and all those who might follow.

Alias_Omega

TBeckett100 wrote: »

if this is the case and B&Q see more cases in court, i am happy to set up a guideline claim and argument point for all.

Ok, you won, but i dont get it.

What have you won.?

Have you won the dishwasher at that price.? Supplied by them.
Have you won the difference between that price & another retailer.?

I dont get it.

Tinman

Silk wrote: »

Do you mean like having time to make these sort of posts

Funny how some people find it hard to admit they were wrong and try and hide it by carrying on mocking people :rolleyes:

Why,was i wrong in what i said?
You didn't lose a bargin,you never had it in the first place.

TBeckett100

B&Q will be ordered to pay the amount I claimed, roughly £326 which is a) costs and b) the difference between what I paid for the dishwasher and what the market value was at the time of making the claim.