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

Pocoyo

henpecked1 wrote: »

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?

I was asked by someone else earlier today; have added it to my blog.

Lynsey

FAO BP, I know the cost of defending this will cost a fair bit so being a nice person contact me when we have a court date and I'll put you up overnight to save costs. I'll also drop you off at the court as I'll be going that way myself and if we have time afterwards I'll show you a few a sites. Dinner's on me if I win as well. You'll have to pay you own transport costs though, I'm not that nice.

Lynsey

Lynsey

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.

and T/S reply:

If the product is available elsewhere for the same price, there is no loss. If the product is available elsewhere but more expensive the loss is the difference between the B&Q price and the new price. Should B&Q subsequently be able to supply the product it would be difficult to sustain a claim for loss of bargain as B&Q are still willing to contract.

I'm still willing to accept the original tanks or replacements/comparable items. At any time upto the court date B&Q want to supply me with the tanks/butts please feel free.
If they want to negotiate I'm also willing to listen to their offers for the breach of contract. This has ALWAYS been the case and I have evidence to prove it.
I've done all that I can, have they done they same???

Lynsey

Defence_Received

Thank you to everyone who has commented so far.

It is very reassuring to find that I am not alone in all this.

I have been mulling over the aspect of the defense that deals with pricing error.

Bond Pearce claim to be able to prove that I must have been aware that the water butt was mis-priced because of discussions to that end on various web forums.

And indeed, there is someone on one of the forums to which they refer with a similar name to mine.

If however they state that because the information was available, I must have known about it, is that not the same as the police issuing me with speeding tickets because my car is capable of exceeding the speed limit?

Just because the car is capable of exceeding the speed limit does not mean it has and just because the information was available does not mean I had seen it.

I will continue to read this thread with interest.

Lynsey

But we never ever knew that these would not be honoured, how could we??
I did initially think it was an error, but after seeing how the price showed the various reductions and how ALL the water tanks/butts were selling at £50 it ridiculed my initial thinking. Toms supplier email backs this up, they were dumping them as they were being discontinued to make way for the 2010 model.
We got all of our advise/help from the web/forums, yes, but is that any different from B&Q getting help from a law firm??
The water butts were never mis-priced, I don't know why they are suddenly changing to that tact apart from what taxiphil suggests, "They are using scare tactics".

Lynsey

justpoppingin

Hi guys,

Got my defence from Bond Pearce.

What happens next?

Pocoyo

justpoppingin wrote: »

Hi guys,

Got my defence from Bond Pearce.

What happens next?

It depends what particular defence the have used in your case as it would appear they are varying it. What does their defence say?

Lynsey

I'm having issues this morning uploading images!!!!!!!!!!
Can someone show the original B&Q advert as it shows the item was ticked as being in stock and also the price reductions. If no joy I'll scan later and post.

Lynsey

Pocoyo

justpoppingin

Pocoyo wrote: »

It depends what particular defence the have used in your case as it would appear they are varying it. What does their defence say?

I'm subject to the, apparently now popular, you knew it was a pricing error, our liability is limited to the tanks you bought instead defence.

I assume at some point I'm going to have to do something before I turn up at court?