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

Pocoyo

http://www.h2o-recycling.co.uk/downloads/BQ-brochure_web.pdf

This has more information about the tank we ordered, taken from the manufacturers website.

Pocoyo

henpecked1 wrote: »

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?

Yes, it would seem so.

You can't un-repudiate a contract.

henpecked1

Pocoyo wrote: »

Yes, it would seem so.

You can't un-repudiate a contract.

so unless I am having a dizzy blonde moment, if we declined the product on this basis and went to the courthouse, then the judge would surely support what is written in law?

muppet_66

Lynsey wrote: »

The defence was filed too late and the issue is between the court and B&Q, although B&Q have the right to get somone to defend on their behalf.
Interesting, I'll imagine BP will try and get this amended to continue.
I would just press on the same, what happens, happens.

BTW, please say this was for several tanks.

Good luck.

Lynsey

yep 2 tanks.....

fantafan

If you don't accept the tank(s) offered, doesn't that prove B&Q right that people were only in it for financial gain? Technically can't they just purchase the one that people claimed for as similar in the quoted alternative? I'm sure they have the buying power to source from whoever they need to.

Silk

fantafan wrote: »

If you don't accept the tank(s) offered, doesn't that prove B&Q right that people were only in it for financial gain? Technically can't they just purchase the one that people claimed for as similar in the quoted alternative? I'm sure they have the buying power to source from whoever they need to.

Hi Fanta,
Not in the least, it doesn't matter one bit what the purpose was of you buying one the fact is that you bought one end of story.
If you were to buy a cycle from Halfords you don't have to ride it. you might want to put it to one side in the event your car breaks down or give it as a present to someone, you may even decide to use it as a garden ornament
The fact would remain the same if you bought it and they didn't supply it then you would suffer loss of bargain!

Lynsey

Got to agree with Silk, why it was purchased doesn't matter (personal use, ebay, commercial business etc.). What matters is the fact B&Q created a "legally binding contract" and further went on to breach this created contract.
We are suing for the breach.

Lynsey

Lynsey

Pocoyo wrote: »

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.

If you signed to accept this, then that is all they can offer. The "alternative" tank was never purchased. The assumption must be they have created this delay to allow H20 Group time to make/get some more??
Or were they imported??

Lynsey

justpoppingin

henpecked1 wrote: »

so unless I am having a dizzy blonde moment, if we declined the product on this basis and went to the courthouse, then the judge would surely support what is written in law?

If only life were that simple.

I think what BP/B&Q are trying to do is to show that they are trying to settle out of court. That sort of thing tends to go down well with judges.

If you'd bought your water tank somewhere else in the meantime, I think you'd have a water-tight case.

If you haven't bought your tank, you would have to explain to the judge why you didn't want to accept the new offer of the tank.

Standing on the letter of the law is one thing, how any particular judge on any particular day interprets those actions is another.

Lynsey

justpoppingin wrote: »

Standing on the letter of the law is one thing, how any particular judge on any particular day interprets those actions is another.

Fully agree, sadly it's not uniformal. Take it into context and look at how you would view it.
Possibly everyone would win on the legal aspect, but what about the "unreasonable test"??

Lynsey