Can we go through small claims court?

Blacksheep1979

The hope you lose is because I believe that the constant wanting to sue people, akin to the American style of life, is slowly erroding our society. As such I believe if people started suing for things like this prices go up and are passed on to everybody.

As for not needing a written contract, whilst that is true the small claims court is based on the balance of probabilities and they will more than likely have to side with someone saying no they didn't say that to yes they did. Overall I do still hope that if the op is foolish enough to continue a frivolous piece of action such as this he loses as it hopefully will set an example to the rest of the board and prevent any further stupid actions such as this.

It can already been seen in other posts, someone wants compensation as they were sent someone elses bank statements?!? How is that any more troublesome to them than receiving any other junk mail - maybe if they had found THEIR details had been passed to someone else fair enough? This stupid compensation society has to stop.

taxiphil

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

The hope you lose is because I believe that the constant wanting to sue people, akin to the American style of life, is slowly erroding our society. As such I believe if people started suing for things like this prices go up and are passed on to everybody.

I'm afraid I disagree wholeheartedly. I'm of the opinion that holding companies to account by suing them instead of letting them ride roughshod over consumer rights can only be of benefit to society and consumers.

To take this instance as an example; if everyone sued DFS for loss of earnings when they failed to deliver at an agreed time, I think the logical outcome would be that DFS would get their act together and start delivering on time, rather than continue to run a shoddy operation and inflate the price of their sofas to cover the cost of all the court claims.

In simple business terms a company can't simply keep inflating its prices to cover its own incompetence, otherwise it will rapidly lose trade to a rival who runs a more efficient operation.

I don't think an claim against DFS for a day's loss of earnings is "frivolous" or "stupid" in the slightest, and based on the facts the OP has supplied I feel it would probably succeed in court.

Blacksheep1979

Whilst I agree that retailers shouldn't be able to abuse their position it would be one small step from they didn't deliver on day X to they were 5 mins late to they kinda implied.... to WOW we're just like the Americans suing because the man who broke into my house cut himself on a knife in the chopping board.

Besides the op didn't lose a days earnings as unless his holidays are vastly different to 99.9999999999% of everyone elses you get paid for a days holiday.

Dave_Brooker

taxiphil wrote: »

In simple business terms a company can't simply keep inflating its prices to cover its own incompetence, otherwise it will rapidly lose trade to a rival who runs a more efficient operation.

We all pay more for insurance than we did because of the rise in litigation.

The blame society is going to ruin this country.

uktim29

taxiphil wrote: »

In simple business terms a company can't simply keep inflating its prices to cover its own incompetence, otherwise it will rapidly lose trade to a rival who runs a more efficient operation.

Your just making the assumption a business is inefficient rather than under funded in a particular department.

With almost all business's these days that is loads of competition so they all cut corners to be the cheapest.

Mistakes such as the one mentioned probably effect much less than 1 in 100 of any companies customers anyway. So to run a business that is so effective that could gaurentee a mistake would never happen at all would result in spending more which would be followed by the competition if they all tried to meet that standard which would definitely get passed onto the customer.