Replacement sink - who pays for plumber to install?

martinsurrey

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

Hadley v Baxendale.

Your analogy would not pass the test of the first or second limb.

a builders merchant could not foresee that the OP was getting a plumber to fit the unit, as the merchant is generally for trade or DIY, unless he specifically told him, the damages incured in refitting the sink that the merchant could foresee are the materials used, so some silicon, the profit on the labour is too remote for the merchant to foresee.

so an offer of £1 for some silicon is my offer.

southcoastrgi

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

Tacit agreement followed by a poor attempt to circumvent with an erroneous non sequitur.

Notwithstanding the obfuscation and the weakening of your earlier intransigence, there is no "'Maybe." The OP's costs of re-installation are a reasonably foreseeable loss arising from the seller's breach of contract in supplying goods of unsatisfactory quality. As such, SOGA and common law cater for the recovery of the loss from the seller, providing the buyer has taken reasonable measures to mitigate the loss.





Being almost inevitable doesn't make it lawful. Anyway as the OP stated in #2:


In a B2C contract, a seller cannot limit or exclude any liability that would diminish the consumer's statutory rights. If the seller were to include such a disclaimer in a consumer contract, it would not be legally valid since it would be voided by consumer protection legislation, such as The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In addition, because the consumer may not be aware that it is not legally valid, not only would such a term be pointless, it could be misleading. This may make it unlawful as an unfair commercial practice under see The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.



Agreed. I have not advocated any specific course of action; I am merely outlining the OP's consumer rights. The way in which these are exercised should only be considered once they are understood.



Useful advice. That could be a sensible opening gambit, providing one is aware of one's rights in the event that the seller is less than helpful.

In fact your suggestion is broadly similar to the advice MSE Martin and MSE Wendy already give in their article on how to complain:



The advice the OP has had now ranges between pay the re-installation cost, see what can be negotiated in good faith with the seller or use consumer rights to recover the cost.

The conflicting views are probably too polarised to reach consensus but at least the OP can make an informed choice on how to follow this up.

In terms of practical advice, what would I do in this case?

A face-to-face chat with the seller to ask them how they plan to remove the faulty sink and fit the replacement. I would ask if they wanted to arrange it themselves or for me to get three quotes (a reasonable measure to show I'm trying to mitigate my loss), have the work completed by a third party and invoice them for it.

If they were to insist at this point that they would not pay I would follow up with normal letter/email asking them to reconsider their position and then, if no joy, Letter Before Action. If that did not have the desired effect I would personally cut and run as, in this instance (£100 or so), it becomes a diminishing return that is not worth further level of effort.



Would I be right in inferring that you are implying me? You are trying to use a circular argument and semantics to cloud the issue.

My position is clear. The OP is legally entitled to damages to recover the cost of re-installing the sink.

So far from you we have had a

to a
and a


Perhaps you could state your position unequivocally on whether or not they are entitled to remedy in law for their loss?

I'm still not sure whether you agree they are, because it is a direct labour cost, as you previously implied, or you disagree because the loss is too remote?

@keystone - As much as I enjoy debating this with you I think it's fair to say we are both trying to help the OP. :beer:

As you say the law may be that synonym for a donkey but if the OP is unjustly out of pocket through no fault of their own, it also enshrines some fine principles, particularly for consumers.

I'll let others judge whether either or both of us are falling foul of the 'First Law of Holes' that you seem to enjoy posting!

any chance you can speak normal english so those of us that haven't got a degree in wikipedia can understand a word you are saying, it's not big & it's not clever it just makes you look like a "synonym for a donkey"

keystone

Toxteth_OGrady wrote: »

Tacit agreement followed by a poor attempt to circumvent with an erroneous non sequitur.

No - you were very specific in stating that OP had a case for consequential loss. It was not and never would be so your citing the case of Hadley v Baxendale in a later post is also erroneous.

Notwithstanding the obfuscation and the weakening of your earlier intransigence, there is no "'Maybe." The OP's costs of re-installation are a reasonably foreseeable loss arising from the seller's breach of contract in supplying goods of unsatisfactory quality. As such, SOGA and common law cater for the recovery of the loss from the seller, providing the buyer has taken reasonable measures to mitigate the loss.

The question hinges on what is "reasonable". Neither your nor I are actually in a position to rule on that.

Being almost inevitable doesn't make it lawful. Anyway as the OP stated in #2:

Thats what concerns me. The OPs use of the phrase "as a consumer" implies far greater knowledge of their situation and perhaps, a fishing expedition to see if anyone would bite to support a case of some description building in their own mind. It seems to me likley that the OP has come across the expresion "as a consumer" after the event. How was the merchant to know that OP was buying "as a consumer" if he's used to his sales being BtoB and his paperwork (ie Ts and Cs on the back of his invoice couched accordingly? Perhaps OP just went to this merchant on the gounds of getting something cheaper than through a more pure retail outlet such as B&Q where even for businesses the normal trading conditions are BtoC. You have to ask for a VAT receipt there for some peculiar reason.

In a B2C contract, a seller cannot limit or exclude any liability that would diminish the consumer's statutory rights. If the seller were to include such a disclaimer in a consumer contract, it would not be legally valid since it would be voided by consumer protection legislation, such as The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In addition, because the consumer may not be aware that it is not legally valid, not only would such a term be pointless, it could be misleading. This may make it unlawful as an unfair commercial practice under see The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Assuming you can reasonably classify this as a BtoC contract as the point of sale rather than after the event which seems to be being what is done. This has a great deal to do with my use of the term "maybe" which you seem to take soime delight in assuming means I'm walking backwards.

Agreed. I have not advocated any specific course of action; I am merely outlining the OP's consumer rights. The way in which these are exercised should only be considered once they are understood.

OK.

Useful advice. That could be a sensible opening gambit, providing one is aware of one's rights in the event that the seller is less than helpful. In fact your suggestion is broadly similar to the advice MSE Martin and MSE Wendy already give in their article on how to complain:

Thank you.

The conflicting views are probably too polarised to reach consensus but at least the OP can make an informed choice on how to follow this up.

Agreed but I remain unconvinced thats its actually as black and white as that.

I would personally cut and run as, in this instance (£100 or so), it becomes a diminishing return that is not worth further level of effort.

Assuming that its actually worth the effort in the first place of course.

Would I be right in inferring that you are implying me?

Only if the cap fits old boy.

You are trying to use a circular argument and semantics to cloud the issue.

Errm No. Absolutely not.

My position is clear. The OP is legally entitled to damages to recover the cost of re-installing the sink.

We have to agree to differ on that because, once again, I don't think its as black and white as that.

I'm still not sure whether you agree they are, because it is a direct labour cost, as you previously implied, or you disagree because the loss is too remote?

Neither am I actually because as I said it hinges on what is reasonable and that includes timescale. Actually I don't think I just implied it either.

@keystone - As much as I enjoy debating this with you I think it's fair to say we are both trying to help the OP. :beer:

With you on that.

I'll let others judge whether either or both of us are falling foul of the 'First Law of Holes' that you seem to enjoy posting!

I'm starting to like you.

Cheers

keystone

Just to add that if the average Joe turns up at a builders merchant or any other sort of trade counter and announces that he is buying "as a consumer" the most likely reaction he will get is "You wot m8?" No disrespect is meant to counter staff.

Cheers

martinsurrey

keystone wrote: »

Just to add that if the average Joe turns up at a builders merchant or any other sort of trade counter and announces that he is buying "as a consumer" the most likely reaction he will get is "You wot m8?" No disrespect is meant to counter staff.

Cheers

And here is a reason Hadley vs Baxendale wouldn’t apply in this case AT ALL, in this case, unlike Hadley, the merchant has not failed to honor the contract through negligence (the courier failed to deliver in Hadley through their own negligence), the merchant delivered the goods as requested, more than likely in packaging, and the fault only became apparent some time later (otherwise why would the OP have installed it).


So I retract my £1 silicon offer, you should have taken me up on it while you had the chance!

warmhands.coldheart

STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE WAS.... ANY CHANCE op

27col

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE WAS.... ANY CHANCE op

I should give up mate. I have because it's making my head hurt.