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

henpecked1

balloonist wrote: »

Did Bond Pearce send your letter out recorded delivery or signed for???? If not, they you could play the same game. This issue is between B&Q and the court. You had no influence in this. I'd continue as normal - not your problem. For me the defence was filed too late.

I dont understand

If B&Q are settling, why fight the judgment?

I would write to your local court with copies of this forum (beat them at their game) and ask them to ask B&Q if they will be settling anyway. If B&Q say no, then I would rebuff any attempt Bond Pierce makes to settle by going to the court room and using the hochester v de la tour case, i.e the right to sue. From what I have read up, thanks to Pocoyo, B&Q once they have cancelled the contract cannot by law make you accept the goods as they have no right to force the contract on you.

If B&Q play you around, send them to the court and get it dealt with in accordance of law.

fantafan

henpecked1 wrote: »

I dont understand

If B&Q are settling, why fight the judgment?

I would write to your local court with copies of this forum (beat them at their game) and ask them to ask B&Q if they will be settling anyway. If B&Q say no, then I would rebuff any attempt Bond Pierce makes to settle by going to the court room and using the hochester v de la tour case, i.e the right to sue. From what I have read up, thanks to Pocoyo, B&Q once they have cancelled the contract cannot by law make you accept the goods as they have no right to force the contract on you.

If B&Q play you around, send them to the court and get it dealt with in accordance of law.

don't they have to pay out the £900+ if it goes to judgement? Giving a tank is cheaper so I don't think they'd want it to go to this.
:A

Silk

henpecked1 wrote: »

I dont understand

If B&Q are settling, why fight the judgment?

I would write to your local court with copies of this forum (beat them at their game) and ask them to ask B&Q if they will be settling anyway. If B&Q say no, then I would rebuff any attempt Bond Pierce makes to settle by going to the court room and using the hochester v de la tour case, i.e the right to sue. From what I have read up, thanks to Pocoyo, B&Q once they have cancelled the contract cannot by law make you accept the goods as they have no right to force the contract on you.

If B&Q play you around, send them to the court and get it dealt with in accordance of law.

Hi all,
Not sure the forum copies are a good idea

IMO the problem is strictly speaking each case is entitled to be tried on it's own merit.
I think what would carry a lot more weight is if you can quote other cases by B&Q of judgement in default, which would show that it wasn't an isolated case of this happening.
I'm pretty sure you don't have to be forced into accepting the goods as sometimes it's possible that the goods have since been bought from another source as in the case of the dishwasher etc

Lynsey

I'm very interested in what they intend to supply, if indeed they do??

Lynsey

Pocoyo

Lynsey wrote: »

I'm very interested in what they intend to supply, if indeed they do??

Lynsey

They're offering me "the tank", it has to be the same one we purchased originally no?

What I find strange is that when B&Q originally cancelled our orders they said the had run out of stock and were unable to source more. If we accept a tank, how long is it going to take for them to obtain it?

Lynsey

How long is the question??
The original deal was approx. 4 weeks.
Anyone had an estimate yet??
Strange, but I can't see this going smoothly - be careful.

Lynsey

Lynsey

Pocoyo wrote: »

They're offering me "the tank", it has to be the same one we purchased originally no?

BTW, were you offered "Argonaut" tanks by BP/B&Q??
If so they can't give you anything different.

Lynsey

Pocoyo

They didn't give all the specs but said "purely on a commercial basis" they were offering me the tank I had purchased so I can't see them getting away with offering something different.

Given the shenanigans they've pulled so far, who knows?!

frugalfran

http://www.h2o-recycling.co.uk/Rain_water.html

These were the original suppliers - still on their web-site. Although it would appear B&Q no longer use them as a supplier, B&Q could ask them to supply again. It would then be up to h2o whether they chose to or not..... (Could be they have B&Q over the proverbial water barrel)

henpecked1

just found this
http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/518.cfm

Term: anticipatory breach of contract
1.
In contract law, where a party unequivocally evinces an intention that they will not perform executory consideration when performance falls due under a contract, the party will be in anticipatory breach of contract. At this point in time, the innocent party may elect to accept the renunciation of the contract, terminate it and sue for damages for the anticipatory breach. No further performance is required under the contract by the innocent party.

does the latter mean that B&Q shouldnt expect us to accept the tanks?