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

Lynsey

fantafan wrote: »

Letter in the post for me. Watch Tom's space now...

fantafan, have you been sending emails, or straight in with letter??
Final week for me with emails - they appear to be a complete waste of time (apart from showing I am attempting to resolve this matter), and when returned, they are only "cut and paste" replys - no answer to any individual questions, though I take that as a positive for me, at least I've made attempts and have shown what I consider to be the problem area. So far they have shown very little, apart from pointing out the "discretion" clause.
I won't be going straight for the jugular, one last attempt by letter (recorded) to allow them to resolve/negotiate the "breach of contract" and then if no breakthrough, LBA with notice of intent to sue giving 14 days.

Lynsey

TBeckett100

all due respect Lynsey, I have tried to be helpful to B&Q and they are not interested either so I have decided that I will not be claiming again confidentially and any agreement offered will be refused. Unless B&Q see your claim form come in, they will take you as being hot air as they do not know you.

Lynsey

They certainly don't seem to want to help - more hinder I would say on my two replies so far. I've always been a believer in trying to resolve prior to suing and will give them one attempt at first and if no joy a LBA and will file on the 15th day. I actually wouldn't mind the experience in going to court (albeit a small claims one) and wouldn't even mind the loss - I made more then enough with the gtechs to cover this (lol).

Lynsey

TBeckett100

you won't lose...

TBeckett100

Unfair terms in contracts state
Frequent unfair terms
Schedule 2 to the Regulations lists a number of standard terms that are frequently unfair. The list is not exhaustive. Similarly, a term is not necessarily unfair just because it appears in the list.

There are more familiar terms which are not on the list yet which are often sited as being unfair. They are terms that:

• Mislead the consumer about the contract or the consumer's legal rights;
• Deny full redress if things go wrong;
• Tie the consumer into the contract unfairly;
• Release the business from performing its obligations;
• Cause loss of prepayments made by the consumer if the contract is cancelled;
• Enable the business to vary its terms after the contract has been agreed;
• Allow the business to impose unfair penalties on the consumer

TehJumpingJawa

Just wanted to say this thread has been & will continue to be a very entertaining read!
Good Luck!

TBeckett100 wrote: »

and make you tick a box to say you accept the T&C's although I am sure you have better chance of spotting Bin Laden on googleearth than find them on the B&Q site.

Just one small thought on this particular aspect; as you have already had a previous entanglement with B&Q, do you think it possible they would use this fact to argue you were already fully aware of what the T&Cs stated - even though they were not adequately displayed during the order process?

Lynsey

TehJumpingJawa wrote: »

Just one small thought on this particular aspect; as you have already had a previous entanglement with B&Q, do you think it possible they would use this fact to argue you were already fully aware of what the T&Cs stated - even though they were not adequately displayed during the order process?

Possibly, but surely the case should rely on the legality of the T&C's.
Was a legally binding contract formed??
Is discretion an argument - they have already lost on this??
Why after losing have they not amended their T&C's to make them more watertight??

Lynsey

TBeckett100

I plan to use old and new arguments. Just because I know the t and cs it remains whether b and q can rely on them i.e. i may not actually agree with them

also, i did buy the argonaut knowing that the judge ruled against the t&cs before, although i could not believe it happened again.

TBeckett100

sorry to bang on

Implied and Express Terms



A contract will consist of two different types of term, known as implied terms and expressed terms. In their most simple definition, an implied term is a term that is understood and considered to exist (such as those outlined within the Sale of Goods Act and the UK Distance Selling Regulations), but has not necessarily been agreed to. Implied terms usually encompass issues such as the description of goods, the satisfactory quality of goods and whether they are ‘fit for purpose’. Express terms are more explicit in that they are the terms that are specifically agreed to by both parties. The most common examples of an express term found in a contract are the price and agreed delivery date. Although contracts don’t have to be written, if there are important express terms involved in the contract, it is advisable to have the contract in writing in case of a dispute.

If any agreement within the contract isn’t met, and one party fails to comply with the terms, this is what is known as a breach of contract. However, all terms must be made clear before the contract is made. Any terms given to the buyer after the contract has been made, such as those written on a receipt, are not considered to be part of the contract and cannot be enforced.

justpoppingin

Lynsey wrote: »

Possibly, but surely the case should rely on the legality of the T&C's.
Was a legally binding contract formed??
Is discretion an argument - they have already lost on this??
Why after losing have they not amended their T&C's to make them more watertight??

Lynsey

My email from B&Q Customer Service states that they will be 'relying on the entirety of their Ts&Cs.'

Since the Ts&Cs state that a contract is formed when they send the order receipt email (whether or not it is received), I read the customer service email to mean that they are happy to concede that there is a contract in place.

Either that, or they haven't thought things through.