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

Anihilator

guy.pennington wrote: »

Clearly B&Q and their lawyers don't think most cases against them would fail, otherwise they would not be settling all actions 'out of court', firstly by offering alternative tanks, and laterly paying some claims in cash (e.g. justpoppingin and others).

Clearly they do, they just know fine the cost of sending solicitors etc is extremely high and are cutting their losses.

B&Q are offering alternative tanks probably at nowhere near the cost of settling in cash (and probably nearer the £50).

Additionally I didnt see one post in here that stated anyone had received a judgement or full settlement of £1000 approx from B&Q - could you direct me to this?

TBeckett100

Anihilator wrote: »

Clearly they do, they just know fine the cost of sending solicitors etc is extremely high and are cutting their losses.

Incorrect. I know of at least one case where BP travelled a great distance and not to defend....

Anihilator wrote: »

B&Q are offering alternative tanks probably at nowhere near the cost of settling in cash (and probably nearer the £50).

Correct. However, case law should be observed and as we have read on the forum, the promised items were not the same.

Anihilator wrote: »

Additionally I didnt see one post in here that stated anyone had received a judgement or full settlement of £1000 approx from B&Q - could you direct me to this?

I have not seen one post either to confirm that someone has lost either. In fact, as PM's are not published, it would be an eye opener to you.

TBeckett100

taxiphil wrote: »

There is absolutely no requirement that the injured party has already put themselves into that position before claiming. That would be ludicrous, as the process of doing so is invariably more expensive than the original contract price (that's why we refer to the original contract as a "bargain") and hence only the wealthy would be able to sue.

.

Correct. According to my contract law book (a wonderful book) didnt a proposed builder for THE DOME in London sue for loss of bargain/profit because his contract was cancelled.... I don't see them spending the money building a new one.

TBeckett100

Anihilator wrote: »

and had the contract been performed you would have had a nice watertank hence its entirely fair and in keeping with the law to insist that you actually purchase the tank.

B&Q denied there was a contract. Law states that the seller can not expect performance from the other party when they have dissolved a contract.

Anihilator wrote: »

There are plenty of legal arguments that B&Q could use here

List them.

taxiphil

Anihilator wrote: »

and had the contract been performed you would have had a nice watertank hence its entirely fair and in keeping with the law to insist that you actually purchase the tank. Afterall thats what you wanted isnt it. You cant seriously expect to be given the cash but then be able to spend it on something seperate. If you are then you are contradicting your argument as you had no losses as you are able to survive without the tank.

There are two main types of loss, reliance loss and expectation loss. "Loss of bargain" is expectation loss and was established in Robinson v Harman 1848. The remedy is also enshrined in s53 Sale of Goods Act 1979. It's a facilitative remedy. There's no requirement that the injured party actually restores themself to the post-contract position before claiming. (Nor is there any requirement for how they choose to spend the damages - the law recognises that circumstances and needs may have changed since the time the contract was made).

If you contract to buy a Rolls Royce for 1p, very few people would be able to afford to buy the Rolls Royce at its typical market value prior to making the claim, so the law would be pretty unfair if your theory was correct. (And incidentally a court would regard a peppercorn as valid consideration for a Rolls Royce - as per the celebrated case of Chappel v Nestle 1960 - the rule is that the court doesn't care whether the parties struck a bad bargain, it only cares whether they entered into a "something for something" arrangement).

Anihilator wrote: »

And actually if B&Q provide evidence that the person had no intention of wanting a tank and did it just to sue then the court will want to see some reasoning. The court will not find in your favour simply to line your pockets as that would be a perverse unfair action. Courts do not like people who do such.

I'm not aware of anything in English law that enquires into why the parties entered a contract. The courts are only concerned with the facts: did the parties enter into a contract - yes or no?

Anyway, there is nothing at all wrong with entering into a contract because you want to make a profit. Millions of times a day X buys something off Y because X then wants to sell it on to Z at a higher price. It's called business - it makes the world go round! There's nothing "perverse" or "unfair" about it. Courts don't have any problem with people entering into contracts in order to make a profit!

Anihilator wrote: »

There are plenty of legal arguments that B&Q could use here and the fact that the majority of you have only sued to profit rather than get a water tank actually makes there case a lot easier.

As I have already said, if you entered into a contract to buy a Rolls Royce in exchange for a peppercorn, it would be just as valid as any other contract, and the courts would have no problem whatsoever with the fact that you were only doing it to make a profit.

taxiphil

Anihilator wrote: »

Additionally I didnt see one post in here that stated anyone had received a judgement or full settlement of £1000 approx from B&Q - could you direct me to this?

I wasn't involved in the water butts case but had a full out-of-court settlement in the previous dishwasher case (the circumstances were pretty much identical). Here's a photo of the cheque:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...439621&page=28

Alias_Omega

If you purchase the item to make a profit, has no bearing with the case.

You simply could of purchased them at £50 a head, and sold them on to the local house-builder a small profit.

What you do with the item has nothing to do with B&Q.

frugalfran

From diyweek.net:

A spokesperson for the company said: "We are proposing to make some changes to the way we staff a small number of our B&Q stores. This is not a cost saving exercise but a rescheduling proposal to ensure we have the right people at the right place at the right time to better serve our customers at the times they need us most."

http://www.diyweek.net/news/news.asp?id=12813&title=B%26Q+response+to+redundancy+rumours

Any suggestions from anyone to help them achieve this? I would suggest they leave the great store-staff alone and look at customer services and head office staff.

Hellowski

B&Q are being a pain.. anyone else resolved their issues with them?

Pocoyo

Hellowski wrote: »

B&Q are being a pain.. anyone else resolved their issues with them?

Define "being a pain". PM me if you like.