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

TBeckett100

Discretion Argument
The definition of discretion is in simple terms the choice between more than one outcome.

For instance, with discretion I could have kept the result of the hearing quiet (i.e. I could choose to talk about it or I could have chose to say nothing).

Now, I argue that if a supplier has no stock left and cannot order any more to give you. Does the supplier have a choice whether to give you the stock or not. Can they say, yes or no. No, because with no stock, there is no choice, there is one outcome and therefore no discretion involved.

I raised the second point about it being an unfair term, but to be fair to the Judge, she was in agreement with the definition of discretion and didnt expand on the whether the term was unfair or not. The judge said B&Q couldnt have any choice in whether to supply me when they had no stock.

Happychappy

Tinman wrote: »

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

Typical "Ilson tarn lad", never admit anything

Alias_Omega

TBeckett100 wrote: »

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.

Ok, so you had to buy the item.

Ah, well we did not buy another dishwasher so dont think we need to progress this further.

TBeckett100

Alias_Omega wrote: »

Ok, so you had to buy the item.QUOTE]

errr no you don't. you just submit a copy of a web advert for the same thing and claim the diff. the idea is you have the money to buy the item. whether you do or not is up to you.

put simply anyone who bought one should claim and will prob walk away with £250 for their troubles.

N20Y1D

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Alias_Omega wrote: »

Ok, so you had to buy the item.QUOTE]

errr no you don't. you just submit a copy of a web advert for the same thing and claim the diff. the idea is you have the money to buy the item. whether you do or not is up to you.

put simply anyone who bought one should claim and will prob walk away with £250 for their troubles.

Fantastic news. You certainly know your onions and have given me the confidence to stick a claim in as well...

I'll probably be pestering you for info though

Debt_Free_Dreamer

Brilliant news. Well done you.

I will be sending off my letter as I too bought one and missed out on the deal.

TBeckett100

Ms S Winchester
B&Q Plc
Portswood House
Hampshire Corporate Business Park
Chandlers Ford
Hampshire
SO53 3YX

Dear Ms Winchester

Order Reference XXXXXXX
Letter Before Action - Zanussi Dishwasher

On XX January 2009, I ordered a Zanussi Dishwasher from www.diy.com at a cost of £89 plus delivery. Payment was taken by B&Q for the item and an email was sent confirming the order had been placed.

On XX January 2009 I received an email from B&Q to confirm that B&Q could not fulfil the contract as stock was exhausted. This is unsatisfactory.

In a recent small claims hearing on the same issue, it was established that B&Q had formed a contract with the buyer pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In addition, under the same Act, Section 51 (Damages for non delivery) states:

(3) Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered or (if no time was fixed) at the time of the refusal to deliver.

The Dishwasher (model ZDT6053) is available to the public at prices starting from £375.60 available online from NewSound (copy attached). I calculate the difference in price to be £286.60.

I understand that B&Q may wish to rely on the following argument “we reserve the right not to supply you at our discretion”. It was established in the Beckett v B&Q hearing that B&Q did not have any discretion on whether it could supply a dishwasher as stocks were exhausted and as such, B&Q could not rely on the term. In addition, the term could be defined as being an unfair term under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which states:

(2) As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any contract term—

(a)

when himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any liability of his in respect of the breach; or

(b)

claim to be entitled—
(i) to render a contractual performance substantially different from that which was reasonably expected of him, or
(ii) in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation, to render no performance at all,

In light of the legislation and arguments put forward and the outcome of a previous case on the same issue, I am writing to request the ‘loss of bargain’ – the difference between the contract price and current market price which I calculate to be the sum of £286.60. Unless I receive full settlement within 14 days, I shall file a claim via the small claims court.

Yours sincerely

N20Y1D

Did warn you....

Full name of organisation including correct suffix: 'B&Q PLC' i guess??

Defendant Address Details? Which did you use?

TBeckett100

http://stores.channeladvisor.com/newsound/Items/1597_574369

TBeckett100

N20Y1D wrote: »

Did warn you....

Full name of organisation including correct suffix: 'B&Q PLC' i guess??

Defendant Address Details? Which did you use?

it is the correct office address. Sue Winchester deals with the complaints of course. If you get the standard bog off reply, then wait for the 14 days and then file.

Once we get to that point, further wording will be drafted for the claim.

and before anyone says anything, the trading law manager of B&Q gave me express permission to "do what you like Mr Beckett"