Forum Home» Martin's Blogs & Appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the News

'Do you still have rights if you pay in Tesco (or other) vouchers?' blog discussion

New Post Advanced Search

'Do you still have rights if you pay in Tesco (or other) vouchers?' blog discussion

3 replies 1.8K views
This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.




Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Replies

  • StryderStryder Forumite
    1.1K posts
    Why is tesco always the example used....

    Love to know how much money Martin receives from Ol' Tesco as they are almost always promoted heavily by this site, even to the extent the end of Double Points is now a call to get "quick, get your BONUS points now".
    If Martin is dipping into politics I wonder how transparent he plans to be in his own funding???
    ............... Have you ever wondered what
    ¦OO¬¬ O[]¦ Martin would look like
    ¦ _______ ¦ In a washing machine
    ¦ ((:money:)) ¦
    ¦
    ¦
    ¦''''''''''''""""""¦
  • arisaris Forumite
    313 posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    Lets also keep in mind that the rules are again different for distance selling. You _can_ change your mind (for any reason) and return the goods within 7 days of receipt.
  • stork_2stork_2 Forumite
    51 posts
    It's not quite correct to say that:

    "Refunds should be identical to the consideration [...]
    This refund should put you back in the position you would have been in if things hadn’t gone wrong, so it’s likely you’ll get vouchers back (though obviously it could chose to offer you cash, and then you have a choice to take that or the vouchers)"


    In fact, if the retailer is in breach of contract, you are entitled to damages (which is a monetary remedy, not vouchers). It should not put you 'back' in the pre-contract position, it should put you in the position you would have been in, had the contract been performed correctly (in so far as money can do that). This is the normal measure of damages (the expectation measure) for breach of contract. The classic formulation of this rule is in Robinson v Harman (1848), which is still good law today:


    " where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed."


    So two points here:


    1. Damages for breach of contract may exceed the original price (for example to compensate for loss of bargain, where you can't get the same goods at such a good price elsewhere, or to compensate for consequential losses).


    2. As damages are a monetary remedy, the retailer might offer you vouchers instead, but you don't have to accept them.


    In some circumstances, the 'reliance' measure of damages would be more appropriate (I won't go into the detail here), but again the remedy would be monetary, not vouchers.



    And in yet other circumstances (less common with breach of contract, but applicable for misrepresentation or where the contract is void for some other reason) a restitutionary award is appropriate, and this does put you back in the pre-contract position.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support