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

Pocoyo

How could you "know" it was a pricing error when apparently B&Q customer services didn't even "know" this when they sent out the letters to inform people they would not be fulfilling the contract?

According to the letter, they had sold some water butts but simply ran out of stock:

frugalfran

Just after christmas I was in my local B&Q and spotted lovely boxes of baubles, reduced from £14.99 to £1 - a bargain. When I came to pay, the price scanned in as 10p! I was honest and asked if that was right, was assured it was. So I went back and bought a few more. The reduction percentage on these was far higher than on the water tanks (those who are more matematically inclined than I am can tell me how to work it out!), but such huge reductions to get rid of stock are obviously not unusual in the store. So to argue that it was a ridiculous and unbelievable reduction is again not borne out by my persoanl experience in the store.

Alias_Omega

Surely letter should of said it was a price error, and not a stock error..

frugalfran

By the way, B&Q are still mentioned in the H2O site - they even include a B&Q brochure of rainwater systems!
See http://www.h2o-recycling.co.uk/downloads/BQ-brochure_web.pdf
So perhaps B&Q can buy our tanks from them.....

Pocoyo

The defense I have received is the basic old "discretion" one, no mention of "frustration" at all.

The majority of it seems to be a tirade against the purpose of these forums. Bond Pearce allege that there is some form of alert system set up (if there is please someone point it out to me because I've never seen such a thing) to prompt people when a pricing error is made so that everyone can order and then sue for loss of bargain. :rolleyes: I wonder if B&Q would be so good as to clearly label their "pricing error" bargains as such, so we know which are which and we can just stick to ordering the genuine reductions?

For the record B&Q I would still accept my tank delivered as settlement to this matter. Since you appear not to be willing to fulfil the contract I have been forced to take the County Court route.

I have spent tens of thousands of pounds with B&Q over the past couple of years and this is not the first time they have cancelled an order on me. The more they play games, the more tempted I am to stick in a claim for every single "Loss of Bargain" claim I am within my rights to make. :mad:

Lynsey

Many thanks P for posting my request, I'm having serious problems with my laptop today and will do a system restore later. As stated it shows the item was in stock, it shows the full price reductions and also shows in the left hand corner that it was a sale item. Yes, it was an item in the sale and was a clearance item according the the supplier as per the email - that puts the pricing error in place along with all the replies from B&Q prior to suing and I stress prior. If B&Q are allowed to breach a contract because they made an error it would open it up for anyone who wants to do the same to use the same argument - it's just ludicrous. If B&Q are allowed to breach a contract because they have their dicretion to, then everyone would apply that term and there would be no need for anyone to sue - again it's ludicrous.
What I will be explaining is the difference between the contracts old and new, one allows a legally binding contract to be formed once the order has been accepted (and accepted it was), the other allows much more leeway and the possibilty for B&Q to reject an order as per their T&C's.
As for forums, yes forums highlight bargains and also pricing errors and forums are a place to help each other (hinder as well), a place to gather info.
B&Q have been negligent, simple as.

Lynsey

Lynsey

Did everyone get the email from Les Templeton which stated:

In particular B&Q will rely on one term under prices and payment, which states:

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

Again, no mention of the pricing error - just relying on "one term".

Lynsey

justpoppingin

Lynsey wrote: »

Did everyone get the email from Les Templeton which stated:



Again, no mention of the pricing error - just relying on "one term".

Lynsey

I have that email.

Lynsey

FAO BP, these price reductions do really exist - again thanks to these types of forums.
85% discount, grab them while you can:
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1;-1&sku=841591

Lynsey

squack

there was no pricing error. a few lucky customers must have actually got an argonaut butt for £50. the diy.com webpage clearly showed it as a clearance item, in stock, with the saving in a box next to the sale price. if the argonauts had been £5 or 5p then the argument of a pricing error would have been more believable. If it had been a misprice then this would have been mentioned in b+q's initial letters when they failed to supply customers, instead of months later when the cases are about to come to court.