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

Lynsey

Argonaut
Water butt






Dear Customer

We regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your order for an Argonaut water butt.





This is due to a system error on our website which caused us to continue taking orders for the product after our stocks had been exhausted. This water butt has now been discontinued and consequently B&Q will not be stocking it in the future.

We apologise for any disappointment this may have caused and confirm that a full refund of monies paid by you for the Argonaut water butt has now taken place and has been credited back to you via the payment method that you used on our website.

If you ordered additional items from B&Q at the same time as placing the order for the Argonaut water butt, these items will be unaffected by this system error.

Should you require any further information regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email.

B&Q Customer Service Department

---

If the pricing error is so significant why was it not stated??
I suggest BP are putting words in B&Q's mouth, this has never ever been stated by B&Q in any correspondence I have receieved from them prior to suing.

Lynsey

N20Y1D

Lynsey wrote: »

---

If the pricing error is so significant why was it not stated??
I suggest BP are putting words in B&Q's mouth, this has never ever been stated by B&Q in any correspondence I have receieved from them prior to suing.

Lynsey

haha its like shooting fish in a.... water butt :rotfl:

frugalfran

My post (no 456 ) referred B&Q to lawyers who drew up t&cs for e-commerce, including wrong pricing. They have called in the lawyers too late, should have done it before they set up their web-site!

If they chose the supplier they and we we could be certain that the spec was identical. Also it would be cheaper for B&Q to buy say 400 tanks and have them delivered than for each of us to buy individually. So commercially this decision seems illogical and will cost them more.

I'm not sure how easy they think it would be for anyone to dispose of a tank on e-bay or similar - it's not going to fit on top of your everyday car for transportation!

I agree with previous posts, if they are changing tack it reflects on the weakness of their original argument - and no mention of pricing error has ever been made.

frugalfran

By the way, I've never been on a single forum before in my life and was totally unaware of the threads about the offer ! I would defy them to prove I knew via a forum.

Pocoyo

Interesting. As more people receive their defense from B&Q/Bond Pearce it would appear that they are using a Pic 'n' mix approach when it comes to choosing which defense to use; Discretion, Frustration and Pricing errors being the usual suspects.

Perhaps B&Q plan to divide and conquer, or maybe they are trying their luck with a variety of defenses in the hope that one of them will stick?

I have updated my blog with this development.

Pocoyo

Defence_Received wrote: »

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.

Well they can't have their cake and eat it. Either there was a contract or there wasn't. Make your minds up B&Q!

Defence_Received wrote: »

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.

I suppose this is the problem when you're grasping at straws and making it up as you go along.

Defence_Received wrote: »

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.

Perhaps B&Q will offer you a bridging loan until the court makes a decision? :rotfl:

frugalfran

I'm no lawyer, so if anyone can help, please do! It just seems very odd to me that anybody or organisation can claim different defences in different courts against identical claims. Does anyone know of anything similar? Or have they identifed individuals from this site and are targeting and varying their response?

taxiphil

I think it's now clear that B&Q / Bond Pearce are acting vexatiously by entering all these defences which they know to be bogus (purely as a bluff to coerce the claimant). Not only is this an abuse of court procedure, but it is an attempt to take unfair advantage of the lack of legal knowledge of claimants who they know are acting without representation. As I mentioned further up on this thread, this is a breach of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct.

In my written correspondence with B&Q some months ago, Claire Frampton changed her stance on her original nonsense defence that there was "no contract" and "no loss" and "we reserve the right not to supply you at our discretion" after I rebutted them all with relevant statute and case law. I have written evidence to show that she accepted her earlier arguments to be non-starters, and of course a letter of full settlement.

So why did she continue using these same defence arguments on so many subsequent claims? It was the final straw for me when I discovered this week that Ms Frampton is now throwing the doctrine of frustration into the mix. That really does take the mick.

I'm making a complaint about Ms Frampton and Bond Pearce to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As far as I'm concerned their conduct throughout this fiasco has been, and continues to be, thoroughly devious and unethical and I think they deserve whatever's coming to them.

henpecked1

ello ello ello
i have also received the defence re the pricing error
how can b&q convince a judge in a court of law that it was a pricing error when clearly they have been saying for months now that it was down to stock issues. i agree, seems as though we have a worm on the end of a hook

i am not worried i am looking forward to asking the judge how come after 2 months the story changed. if it was a price error, why didnt they offer it at the correct price. does anyone have a copy of tom's email mentioned by lynsey?

Lynsey

henpecked1 wrote: »

does anyone have a copy of tom's email mentioned by lynsey?

Yes me , I've got all the stuff from Toms site in my B&Q folder right here on my desktop.
Anyone that needs anything please ask and I will forward it to them. Sorry if my pm box is full, I'll get back.

Edit: it's already here: http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af98/pkellis22/BQemail.jpg thanks p.

Lynsey