Argos have now said that the item will now not be in stock

arcon5

malchish wrote: »

No, they need to place you in a position you were had they fulfilled the contract properly! They have no right to rescind the contract without your agreement. Only if you want to cancel/reject the contract, then they need to make a full refund to place you in a position you were before the contract with them.
In practice, people rarely claim damages greater than a refund - some do not want to bother, for some it is not important and they are happy with a refund, some get intimidated by "you will get nowhere" advice, such as visidigi gave you. The companies will always claim that you have no rights beyond refund. However, because the area is untested for such small disputes, and in your case the circumstances strengthen your position, you can well try the cheap small claims court route - and I doubt Argos will defend, it would be too expensive for them. They will agree to replace by the cheapest like-for-like available alternative, or pay you damages enough to get this alternative product. But not without a fight (not legal, just scare-mondering fight) first. Even if they will defend, the most you stand to lose is your court fee (about £30?).

In addition to the 'filing fee'..... they also stand to loose the hearing fee (about £60) and they can ask a judge for for travel costs if the case is frivolous for example (although not guaranteed).

So op would stand to loose £90+

I assume they never covered the latter fee in the text book you're reading?

bris

http://www.bitterwallet.com/bq-%E2%80%93-the-dishwashers-with-no-discretion/13425
Same scenario, a court decided the outcome.

malchish

bris wrote: »

A contract has been formed, of course it has, an price has been offered and accepted. This is not a misprice and at no time has Argos admitted to making a mistake. This is a straight forward broken contract, Argos can not just rescind this contract.
A court would agree with the op on this one if it was to go that far, but it is not viable to do so as the claim would not make it worthwhile, the loss is only the difference paid for a similar product minus the cost of the failed delivery, so most of these claims will never see the light of day. there are enough historic cases out there though that make the claim viable if it were to go that far.

Excellent point.

malchish

bris wrote: »

http://www.bitterwallet.com/bq-%E2%80%93-the-dishwashers-with-no-discretion/13425
Same scenario, a court decided the outcome.

Thank you. HEre is the proof, that very proof kindly provided by the poster. Well, what the anti-consumer clique would like to argue now, you were so demanding the proof?

halibut2209

Looks like B&Q lost because they argued the wrong defence.

shaun_from_Africa

There appears to be one major difference between the B&Q case and the one here.
B&Q dropped themselve in it by admitting that they could have supplied the dishwasher but simply didn't want to.

I had posted were read out, despite them all being neatly highlighted and marked with colourful post it notes. B&Q admitted errors were made and more stock sold than was available but also stated they could supply at their discretion

Argos on the other hand appear to have totally stopped selling the cabinet in question and have clearly stated that they won't be getting any more stock.

societys_child

wealdroam wrote: »

But that's for online sales, and Argos T&Cs are similar.

The OP has clearly said that he made the purchase in-store.

Yeah, I was responding to the posts made by malchish

bris

halibut2209 wrote: »

Looks like B&Q lost because they argued the wrong defence.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

There appears to be one major difference between the B&Q case and the one here.
B&Q dropped themselve in it by admitting that they could have supplied the dishwasher but simply didn't want to.



Argos on the other hand appear to have totally stopped selling the cabinet in question and have clearly stated that they won't be getting any more stock.

They lost because they broke the contract unfairly, whatever reason makes no difference.
It's the law and there in black and white for you to see but still you think you know better. or just can't accept your wrong. live with it !!!!!!.

shaun_from_Africa

bris wrote: »

They lost because they broke the contract unfairly, whatever reason makes no difference.
It's the law and there in black and white for you to see but still you think you know better. or just can't accept your wrong. live with it !!!!!!.

I totally agree that they lost because they broke the contract unfairly. (and I never stated otherwise)
My point however was that Argos might well be able to convince a judge that the reason they had to break the contract was due to circumstances beyond their control, and they may be able to show that they attempted to fulfill the contract but were unable to do so.

This clearly wasn't the case with B&Q as they stated in court that they could have supplied a dishwasher but chose not to.

The B&Q case does appear to be black and white, but that doesn't automatically mean that all similar cases will have the same outcome if legal action was taken.