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

frugalfran

I think I've missed some posts recently - have B&Q quoted this site in their defense case? (Along with frustration? - no contract? - mis-pricing?) Seems they are getting desperate. The only relevant parts are the legal arguments, and it seems the scales are weighted in the favour of the buyers not B&Q in this caes -see Lynsey's summary of the arguments. Why anyone bought is (imho) irrelevant - but I stand to be corrected by those with more legal knowledge than me - and the use of templates is surely acceptable - how many people have downloaded Martin's template re bank charges?

Lynsey

From the messages I've received MSE quotes are their defense along with the "discretion" clause, which according to TS is an unfair term, ie; they want to form a "legally binding contract", yet still want the option to cancel the "legally binding contract" at their "discretion" - if that makes sense??

Lynsey

Lynsey

Not sure if anyone has a case coming up but take a copy of this:

http://www.venables.co.uk/n0203mistakes.htm

I've had a pm message stating BP have included the Hartog case based on a price error. We know this was NOT a price error but could only be an error from B&Q regarding stock, something we can not have had any control over at all.

The screenshot of the "sale item" of the water tanks show this along with the price reduction, also with the cancellation letter proving no mention ever of a price error.

You will need the above link or similar - please use it.

Lynsey

frugalfran

Discretion implies a choice, as you - and Tom - have previously said. If there is no choice you cannot use discretion (if there is no stock, there is no discretion).

Are they targetting comments from MSE in their defence claims?

I still maintain that legally their defense should be standard - the problem is as you stated - we bought according to their terms and conditions at that time and those have proved to be inadeqate to the situation THEY created by their lax web-site and stock control systems.

frugalfran

Discretion means choice -and if there is no stock -as in this case - there is no choice

Lynsey

Discretion does mean choice, but is also unfair as I stated above. Go for the unfair terms argument and the choice option - but the unfair term would kill this dead. Win the discretion clause and what do they have?? They have unfair T&C's.
The contract was formed as per the acceptance email and then breached.
Still no news on whether they are going to offer the original items or similar, it would be nice to get what we ordered and end all this - again out of our control.

Lynsey

French_Saver

This is riveting stuff. I have not tried to purchase a water butt (although at that price I would have) but I really enjoy reading this thread. Keep it up guys. If this goes to court I'd love to attend to listen to the arguments presented by both sides, especially when extracts from this web site are used!! One quick question though: isn't BP deliberately entering different defences in order to identify members of this forum as they well know they don't have a leg to stand on?

Lynsey

Thanks French Saver, it is appreciated that other MSE members do support us.

Significant, regarding "discretion"??

There are two problems with this approach - firstly, this clause could fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and even more likely the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 because it is an onerous clause allowing the retailer in a position of strength to alter the conditions of the contract unilaterally without notice. Secondly, the clause specifically refers to "exceptional circumstances" in relation to "availability" and it is a stretch to apply the right to limit supplies to other situations.

The link provided up above provides a great insight.
http://www.venables.co.uk/n0203mistakes.htm
If you get down and slightly worried, this should be a great "tonic"

Lynsey

squack

i think there maybe only a few court cases pending over the rainwater tanks at the moment. others are holding back to see what happens. b&q / bond pearce maybe put all their efforts into defending one case in court, if as seems likely,they lose, i think they will be making offers to the other claimants. they are hoping people will back down and lose their bottle but will probably cave in before the court date. for them it is a case of damage limitation, as a business they will make a decision to go with the least costly option :money:

Alias_Omega

If a claim was Acknowledged on the 6th Aug 2009, its 28days isnt it.

That makes it the 3rd September as the date is up,which is next thursday (1 week thurs), im away with work at the weekend for a few days. What can happen if this expires and i receive no defense, or i receive a defense and dont put anything back..