Tricky Return

halibut2209

Interesting or not, it is correct

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

I am quoting that from:

http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/lecture-notes/remedies-lecture-1.php

I wasn't sure if I could post links so I left it out before...

CALCULATION OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BARGAIN

Where the plaintiff claims for loss of bargain and that he be put in the position as if the contract had been performed, two bases of assessment are available: cost of cure and difference in value. See:

Peevyhouse v Garland Coal Co (1962) 382 P 2d 109.

Peevyhouse v Garland Coal Co (1962) 382 P 2d 109. is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Can you please quote from UK law such as the Sales of Goods Act where you can claim "Loss of a Bargain".

shak2

Found something VERY interesting. It's from a big claim here on MSE and talks about loss of bargain and SOGA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29858801&postcount=2

powerful_Rogue

ACTUAL AND MARKET VALUES

Where damages are based on the difference in value principle, then market values may be taken into account to assess the plaintiff's loss. For example, where the defendant fails to deliver goods or render services, then the plaintiff can go into the market and obtain these goods or services at the prevailing price. Therefore the plaintiff's damages will be the difference between the market price and the price of the goods or services in the contract. There are two rules:


(i) Under s51 SGA 1979, where a seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller for damages for non-delivery. But such an action will not allow the seller to recover for anything more than the difference between the market value and the contract value.


(ii) If the defendant wrongfully refuses to accept and pay for the goods, then the plaintiff can sue for the loss of profit on that transaction in certain circumstances. Compare:
Thompson v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] Ch 177
Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117.

Do either of the two rules apply to your situation, if not, then you dont have a case.

wealdroam

shak2 wrote: »

I am quoting that from:

http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/lecture-notes/remedies-lecture-1.php

I wasn't sure if I could post links so I left it out before...

OK, thank you.

So you are not quoting the legislation then... just another interpretation of it.

Opinions eh? Even lawyers have them.

powerful_Rogue

shak2 wrote: »

Found something VERY interesting. It's from a big claim here on MSE and talks about loss of bargain and SOGA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29858801&postcount=2

From that post.

The measurement of damages comes from the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

While s.51(3) Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied in the B&Q case, as we didn't receive any delivery at all, your case is slightly different as they've sent a product of lower value instead, so you'll need s.53(3) which measures the damages as the difference between the value of the goods received and the value they would have had if the contract had been performed - £900 by my reckoning.

This has no relevance to your situation. Please see my above post which highlights the two rules.

halibut2209

shak2 wrote: »

Found something VERY interesting. It's from a big claim here on MSE and talks about loss of bargain and SOGA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29858801&postcount=2

Completely different situation. In that case the contract to deliver what was agreed was never fulfilled. In yours, the contract WAS fulfilled.

Try again

RichardD1970

I know nothing about any of this, but looking at the lawteacher site it appears to be a site specifically to cheat you through your degree by writing your essays and dissertations for you.

Or am I wrong??

shak2

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

There are two rules:


(i) Under s51 SGA 1979, where a seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may maintain an action against the seller for damages for non-delivery. But such an action will not allow the seller to recover for anything more than the difference between the market value and the contract value.


(ii) If the defendant wrongfully refuses to accept and pay for the goods, then the plaintiff can sue for the loss of profit on that transaction in certain circumstances. Compare:
Thompson v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] Ch 177
Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117.

THANK YOU!! (a) applies in my case because the seller refused to deliver the goods to me and instead chose to give the refund of their own accord.

Is there a time limit in which I have to do the small claims thing?

halibut2209

Hahaha!

Wrong yet again. They did deliver the goods. Contract fulfilled. What happened after doesn't negate that