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

TBeckett100

Remember u are suing and u call the shots

balloonist

27.14 (among other things includes)

A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

justpoppingin

Pocoyo wrote: »

My undertanding is that you would essentially be agreeing to drop court proceedings in exchange for entering into a new contract to purchase the goods at the previously agreed price. Bond Pearce's involvement will end with their handling of the withdrawal of the court case.

The contract would not be enforcable by the court because you are settling out of court.

If you decide to accept, I would strongly suggest you make sure that B&Q will deliver the goods within an agreed time period and under the old terms and conditions.

If they cancel your order, you can't simply lodge a new claim because as per their new T&C's, there is no contract until the goods are dispatched.

Be careful!

But you can open a new claim on the original order because the settlement is based on them supplying you with the tanks.

If they don't supply you with the tanks, they haven't fulfilled their part of the bargain. And are therefore in breach of the out of court settlement.

Not that it would go to court. Can you imagine the stink if B&Q tried this and consumer programmes got hold of it?

somerandomguy_2

I was wondering if the offer letter was marked "without prejudice" ?if so relying on it in court as evidence would be frowned upon
http://www.finance-glossary.com/define/without%20prejudice/1545/

I think my response to the offer would be along the line of either:
- yes, I will happily accept the butt, under the original T&Cs and will withdraw the claim on delivery. Please let me know the guaranteed delivery date so that I can ask for an adjournement
or
- thanks for the offer, but due to your client's breach of contract I am unable to accept due to changed circumstances brought about by mitigating the costs of your client's breach of contract.

These changes could be that I have filled in the big hole and already laid the patio where it was going to be installed and taken the digger off hire - all in the interests of mitigating costs. Or have already used a different rain havesting method - again to mitigate the costs.

Aswell as being resonable, you are expected to minimise the costs of the breach, although no-one seems to have claimed for consequential losses. for example, if you are planning on using the rainwater to water your garden and are on a water meter, then no longer being able to do this would incur costs for the years ahead, you could argue that you are being reasonble not claiming these.

good luck

Alias_Omega

Just filling in the N149 Court Allocation Questionnaire.

Part H - Fee

What do i do with this, is this the extra £35 i need to pay. Can i claim this back from B&Q on top of everything else.?

Ive checked the EX160A form,and i cant seem to find what i need..

TBeckett100

oh yes, pay the £35 fee and when you get judgment ask the judge to include it. I forgot, thus the profit margin reduces

Pocoyo

Does anyone have a delivery date for their tank yet?

frugalfran

Can we pay COD if/when we get them? 'Twould seem the fairest way to do it!

Pocoyo

I doubt it although I haven't specifically asked.

The offer is: withdraw court case, pay £50 and we'll give you the tank and refund court costs.

Lynsey

I would prefer to pay cash up-front, if not delivered within 4 weeks then start SHOUTING all over again.

Lynsey