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

veruccasalt

Pocoyo wrote: »

Your name suits you.

Thanks, thats a much better picture to use as my avatar, do you mind if I swap my current one (from the Johnny Depp remake) with this picture? I searched for one like this a while ago, but was in too much of a hurry. You have made a great job, thanks!

frugalfran

Am I missing some comments here - Where have all the rants gone? I'm pleased not to see them... I'm sure it was on page 30 this morning, Perhaps I'm going mad.....

lalamb77

I missing them too. Very strange, I am assuming the posters have decided to remove them.

fantafan

I know I'm not the first but does anybody have a court date?

justpoppingin

Does anyone know if it's 28 working days or 28 calendar days?

Pocoyo

justpoppingin wrote: »

Does anyone know if it's 28 working days or 28 calendar days?

28 calendar days I think.

Lynsey

justpoppingin wrote: »

Does anyone know if it's 28 working days or 28 calendar days?

I believe it's calendar days, but stand to be corrected. They will usually respond on day 27.

Lynsey

justpoppingin

I thought it was 28 days since my claim went in but had heard nothing.

Further investigation on the MCOL website says that the 28 days is from the claim service date, which is 5 days after the claim was submitted.

Which makes it 33 days really.

Defence_Received

I received my copy of the defence lodged by Bond Pearce on behalf of B&Q today.

I've read this thread with interest. It might interest other readers of this forum to know that the defence lodged to my claim does not make any mention of frustration.

Their defence is that there was no contract. If there was a contract they were allowed to not supply the goods because of the discretion clause. The price offered was as the result of an error on the website. Because the offer was discussed on various online forums they claim to be able to show that I was aware of the pricing error and therefore Hartog v. Colin and Shields applies. And finally, they claim that my loss is limited to the amount I actually paid for the replacement tanks. And that they wish to see actual proof that I've bought replacement tanks.

Wikipedia has the following to say about Hartog vs. Colin and Shields.
Modern relevance

This case has become a highly relevant precedent in the modern context of e-shopping on the Internet, when online retailers sometimes get the published price wrong and receive hundreds of online orders (automatically accepted) before they discover their error - e.g. advertising a £299 television on the website for £2.99. Retailers can avoid having to supply at the mistakenly low price if the court finds that the would-be purchasers must have known that the advertised price was clearly a mistake.


Others have commented on the first two arguements.


I'm surprised that they claim a pricing error as part of their defense. In all the correspondence from B&Q they claim they are unable to supply the tanks because their clearance stock is exhausted, not because they mispriced the product on the website. I would have thought that if the error was due to mis-pricing they would have referred to that earlier.


In response to the defense that their liability is limited to the price I paid for the replacement tanks, that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. How can I buy replacement tanks when the money I intend to use to buy them is the compensation I'm seeking from B&Q?


I would be interested in any views any other forum member would care to offer.


Thank you for reading.

Lynsey

There was no pricing error - never was. Tom's email from the supplier states B&Q were dumping these at reduced prices. If it was a pricing error why did they show the reduction?? It's good that what they originally were saying has changed. Any errors could only be made from the B&Q side.
I can understand the loss regarding purchasing other tanks, but we have repeatedly asked for comparable products. Loss of bargain should put us back to the origanal position as if a legally binding contract was formed.
I'm happy to go to court to argue this and let a judge decide, I've paid my £80 anyway. So will it get there or will they negotiate??
The Hartog case was of a pricing error, kick that one into touch, the same as the frustration argument - they are grasping at straws.


Lynsey