Sale contract rights

Forwandert

Suited72 wrote: »

B&Q and myself have been communiacting over email. I replied to their email with subject "Notice of intent to start legal proceedings within 14 days of this email"


They replied with
"Thank you for your email, our stance remains the same, our terms and conditions are clear in that in the case of a mis price we can choose not to accept the order and cancel."
They went on to give the company details and address with which to apply for a legal claim.

Is that what you would deem a letter before action?

Just to clarify this was a pricing error as opose to an item they had on sale and didn't have enough stock to fulfill the order? The mis price wasn't mentioned in your opening post.

bod1467

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

MCOL is for claiming provable losses and not for unprovable things such as damages or inconvenience.

Not necessarily ... small claims can also be used for claims such as "hurt to feelings". An example might be where a breach of the Equality Act 2010 has inconvenienced a person with recognised characteristics per the Act.

But I agree that in THIS case it's not relevant to the claim and should be removed.

Suited72

Forwandert - Yes they claimed it was a mis-price.


I asked consumer direct about what to claim they told me that i should use money claim online and could claim for time and inconvenience at whatever i thought was reasonable. They said I may have to proove it was reasonable and wouldnt give me any indication of what reasonable was.


However, if this effects my case do they throw it all out or just award me the difference? Without a lawyer how are we supposed to do everything 100%?

lucy03

Suited72 wrote: »

Forwandert - Yes they claimed it was a mis-price.

I asked consumer direct about what to claim they told me that i should use money claim online and could claim for time and inconvenience at whatever i thought was reasonable. They said I may have to proove it was reasonable and wouldnt give me any indication of what reasonable was.

However, if this effects my case do they throw it all out or just award me the difference? Without a lawyer how are we supposed to do everything 100%?

You can't claim for time and inconvenience in a case like this, but the district judge can ignore that part. Just from my experience though that might make the judge a little less tolerant of the claim, because it does give the impression that you are trying to take advantage of the situation if I'm being honest.

If you are claiming under loss of bargain, which is tricky, then you will need to have purchased the more expensive item so that you can present the receipt to the court. The judge is going to need to see that so that they can evidence your losses.

The retailer might request a summary judgement and claim that your case has no merit. But now it's submitted just make sure that your paperwork is complete and see what the retailer says in response.

meer53

Why not cut all the hassle and buy another oven ?

Suited72

meer53 wrote: »

Why not cut all the hassle and buy another oven ?

Save all the hassle and pay full price?


Isnt that what this site is here for? People taking the time and hassle to cut bills, and get best prices.

meer53

Suited72 wrote: »

Save all the hassle and pay full price?


Isnt that what this site is here for? People taking the time and hassle to cut bills, and get best prices.

There are other stores. One way to save money is to shop around. I didn't say pay full price.

I'm assuming that they were refunded the original price. They didn't have an oven before, they don't have an oven now. They say the lack of an oven is holding things up. How is going to court going to make things better for them ? Surely the sensible thing to do would be to source another oven ?

Suited72

meer53 wrote: »

There are other stores. One way to save money is to shop around. I didn't say pay full price.

I'm assuming that they were refunded the original price. They didn't have an oven before, they don't have an oven now. They say the lack of an oven is holding things up. How is going to court going to make things better for them ? Surely the sensible thing to do would be to source another oven ?

The oven was £350 cheaper than its nearest best price. I had waited to get a bargain, paid and waited 6 weeks for delivery. That was the biggest hassle. Taking B&Q to mcol is worth it for me. The hour i spend a week on here, shaving bills down and being prudent pays for all our holidays.

wealdroam

Suited72 wrote: »

Taking B&Q to mcol is worth it for me.

You seem quite sure about that.
I am not so sure.

As said earlier it all boils down to whether the goods were despatched before or after they called to cancel.

Of course B&Q will say they phoned before despatch.

You however, have no possible way of proving otherwise.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
Keep us posted on the outcome, won't you?

DevCoder

So have you purchased the oven at the higher price?

Because as already mentioned, you can't claim the difference as "loss of bargain" without having done so and got the receipts...

If you haven't done so then I could see this being easily defended by the B&Q legal team.

Thats if you get past the formation of contract part...