Rainwater Tank 1100 Litre £1498.00now£50.00@B&Q smaller one also avail for same price

leo~saphira

Well I got a reply back, sent Tom an email on some advice as they are choosing to ignore the section in the letter stating the following:

“We reserve the right not to supply you at our discretion”

By now you will have been refunded the monies taken in payment. You appear to be claiming that B&Q have breached the contract with you. B&Q's position is that any claim you have for breach of contract is not valid as you have not actually suffered any loss now that the monies have been refunded and that they are legitimately relying on the contractual Terms and Conditions by not supplying you with the Water Butt.

We do appreciate that you may find this situation frustrating, but it is only as a result of a genuine system error and B&Q made their best efforts to inform you of this, and refund your money at the earliest possible opportunity.

What a load of tosh! I gonna have to fire one back to them shorty explaining that if they had no stock or accepting the orders still, then they had no discretion as its unfair... just like Tom said in his letter:

"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 underground tank 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, "

Wondering what to do next... will need the night to think this one over and advice from Tom

Thanks

taxiphil

leo~saphira wrote: »

Well I got a reply back, sent Tom an email on some advice as they are choosing to ignore the section in the letter stating the following:

“We reserve the right not to supply you at our discretion”

By now you will have been refunded the monies taken in payment. You appear to be claiming that B&Q have breached the contract with you. B&Q's position is that any claim you have for breach of contract is not valid as you have not actually suffered any loss now that the monies have been refunded and that they are legitimately relying on the contractual Terms and Conditions by not supplying you with the Water Butt.

We do appreciate that you may find this situation frustrating, but it is only as a result of a genuine system error and B&Q made their best efforts to inform you of this, and refund your money at the earliest possible opportunity.

The crux here, from what I can see, is that B&Q are falsely claiming (exactly as they did in the dishwasher case) that because you received a refund, you haven't suffered any loss. In other words they are saying that "loss of bargain" isn't recognised in law.

But this is codswallop. They are disingenuously trying to distort a fundamental point of law, to make you think you don't have a case against them. The remedy for breach of contract is not to put you back in the pre-contract position (as B&Q are implying) - it is actually to put you in the position you would have been in if the contract had been peformed.

The damages are therefore for loss of bargain - better known by lawyers as "expectation loss". The precedent for this is Robinson v Harman (1848) where the court said:

"The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed".

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (section 51) then bolstered this common law position by defining exactly how these damages should be measured ("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 delievered").

It's regrettable to see that B&Q's strategy, after everything that's happened with the dishwasher cases, is to deliberately try to mislead and misinform its customers about their legal rights and the extent of B&Q's liability. Shame on you, B&Q. This really stinks.

Stand your ground and sue. B&Q won't have a leg to stand on if this comes to court.

Pocoyo

Thank you taxiphil for your comments. I'm guessing B&Q hope to fob as many people off as possible to minimise the number of court cases they have to fight. :rolleyes:

squack

ha ha ha ..

TBeckett100

I agree with taxiphil and based on my case, the discretion clause is the downfall for b&q. had they put in something about stock etc things could be more interesting

please do not let B&q put anyone off by B&Q stating they will use the get out clause, it is a load of old toot.

When you get a reply like that of the above - file the claim straghtaway! the lossofbargain.c o.u k site (which is not profit making, does not help me in anyway, in fact it took me the best part of my weekend, and is there to help others - therefore doesnt warrant deletion!) should help!

Lynsey

Same reply from me. One last email tomorrow stating the obvious - probably a waste of time though.
Great post taxiphil - very helpful and a lot will be quoted.

Lynsey

fantafan

TBeckett100 wrote: »

I agree with taxiphil and based on my case, the discretion clause is the downfall for b&q. had they put in something about stock etc things could be more interesting

please do not let B&q put anyone off by B&Q stating they will use the get out clause, it is a load of old toot.

When you get a reply like that of the above - file the claim straghtaway! the lossofbargain.c o.u k site (which is not profit making, does not help me in anyway, in fact it took me the best part of my weekend, and is there to help others - therefore doesnt warrant deletion!) should help!

Has the Fat Lady sung on our water tanks then?

TBeckett100

As Watchdog gears up for a new season, please email [EMAIL="watchdog@bbc.co.uk"]watchdog@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL] with the following text and hopefully we can get some action! - Thank you all!

USE THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT B&Q Misleading Complainants?

Dear Watchdog Team,

It would appear that B&Q could be misleading customers about their rights when they are not fulfilling customer orders. Recently B&Q cancelled a number of orders for a Zanussi Dishwasher. When customers wrote to request compensation for 'loss of bargain' (a term in law which is supposed place the buyer in the same position had the contract been performed) B&Q informed them they have suffered no loss. In addition, B&Q had no choice but not to supply stock as they had no more deliveries, yet B&Q stated that they wish to use a term in their Terms and Conditions which states "B&Q reserves the right not to supply you at our discretion". However, how is discretion used when there is only one outcome?

One consumer, Tom Beckett took B&Q to court and successfully sued for the difference in price between the purchase price and the market value. The judge found a contract has been formed and that discretion was not a valid argument.

Following the judgment, B&Q took orders for an ‘Argonaut Rainsaver’. As the court result was publicised on lossofbargain.co.uk, a number of people complained to B&Q threatening legal action, myself included stating the findings of the hearing. However, despite losing a case, B&Q are still misleading customers into believing they have no legal redress by still stating they can refuse to supply at their discretion and there is no loss. As over 500 people could be affected, I would be grateful if Watchdog could look into this.

Kind regards
XXXXX

TBeckett100

lots of people has asked for a copy of the email confirming no more stock from the supplier. Although on my site, a direct link is here
tbeckett100.googlepages.com/email

Jefft_2

If anyone wants to take their complaint to the top you could email Euan Sutherland CEO of B&Q - [EMAIL="euan.sutherland@b-and-q.co.uk"]euan.sutherland@b-and-q.co.uk[/EMAIL] or ring his Personal Assistant, Briony McManus on 02380 25 7273