Sale contract rights

shaun_from_Africa

Another thing to bear in mind is that B&Q have a similar set of T&C's to most other online retailers, T&C's that you tick a box to state that you have read and agreed to when making a purchase.

5.3 We may update prices at any time. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the thousands of products we sell may occasionally be mispriced. If this happens then we will not be obliged to supply the Products at the incorrect price or at all. We will (at our discretion) either cancel your order and refund the price you have paid or endeavour to contact you and ask you whether you wish to continue with the order at the correct price. If we are unable to contact you or you do not wish to continue with the order at the correct price, we will cancel your order and refund the price you have paid

lucy03

krisdorey wrote: »

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...

Absolutely, the OP will need to have now purchased the oven at the higher price and be able to show that they have done everything that they can to mitigate their losses and not just bought the first one that they saw. If the purchase of the item is after the date of the court paperwork I suspect this will fail as the retailer will argue how it was possible to know the extent of the losses before the purchase was made.

I can't see the OP winning the formation of contract argument either. All they can do is present all of the dates clearly in their paperwork and let the judge deal with the legal technicalities.

Suited72

I've not mentioned loss of bargain. All I've mentioned on the paperwork for court is that I believe a contract of sale was in place to supply the goods. If I have done something wrong With the amount then I'm hopeful the judge would allow for this as I've no legal understanding and have done everything consumer direct advised me to do.

I'm challenging just this one point. That the SOGA state when a contract is formed the company must supply the goods and their terms state a sale contract is formed upon despatch and I got notification of delivery. In my favour I have information everywhere, including trading standards stating that if a date and time of delivery is given then a contract is formed.

If I lost Ide consider I had tested a grey area and I don't mind doing that.

With regard to B&Q term 5.3 - this only applies before the contract is formed. Once I have a contract they have to supply the goods. It all comes back to the contract. Either the judge decides despatch happens when the company tells me it has been or when it's physically loaded onto a van. My point will be that I could never prove the latter which means the contract isn't formed until delivery - and I've been told that wouldn't be legal.

meer53

5.3 We may update prices at any time. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the thousands of products we sell may occasionally be mispriced. If this happens then we will not be obliged to supply the Products at the incorrect price or at all. We will (at our discretion) either cancel your order and refund the price you have paid or endeavour to contact you and ask you whether you wish to continue with the order at the correct price. If we are unable to contact you or you do not wish to continue with the order at the correct price, we will cancel your order and refund the price you have paid

lucy03

Suited72 wrote: »

I've not mentioned loss of bargain. All I've mentioned on the paperwork for court is that I believe a contract of sale was in place to supply the goods. If I have done something wrong With the amount then I'm hopeful the judge would allow for this as I've no legal understanding and have done everything consumer direct advised me to do.

I'm challenging just this one point. That the SOGA state when a contract is formed the company must supply the goods and their terms state a sale contract is formed upon despatch and I got notification of delivery. In my favour I have information everywhere, including trading standards stating that if a date and time of delivery is given then a contract is formed.

If I lost Ide consider I had tested a grey area and I don't mind doing that.

With regard to B&Q term 5.3 - this only applies before the contract is formed. Once I have a contract they have to supply the goods. It all comes back to the contract. Either the judge decides despatch happens when the company tells me it has been or when it's physically loaded onto a van. My point will be that I could never prove the latter which means the contract isn't formed until delivery - and I've been told that wouldn't be legal.

It won't test a grey area as a decision is made on a case by the district judge and it wouldn't create a legal precedent.

The reason you'd have to claim loss of bargain, with evidence of your more expensive purchase, is that there is IMO no other claim here. The retailer needs to legally refund you, which they've done. So there is no claim to be had as you've been returned to the position that you were in before the contract started.

A retailer will not be forced to supply the goods so it's not clear what you want to the district judge to do here. You have to show a loss to the judge for them to be able to remedy the situation. I think the retailer's terms and conditions cover them, but regardless of that it doesn't make any difference here if the contract has been formed because they've also refunded it.

bod1467

I concur with the other posters here - unless you claim for Loss of Bargain (LoB, which can be notoriously difficult to prove) then you have no claim as it currently stands; B&Q's T&Cs (which you had to confirm acceptance of prior to initiating the contract process) allows them to terminate the contract prior to despatch.

I know you're arguing that the time slot email forms "despatch" and so the contract was concluded. But unless you claim for LoB then you have no claim other than for inconvenience (which again can be difficult to prove).

Suited72

I thought the sale contract meant I was entitled to ask for the goods to be supplied? I didnt accept a refund, they did that against my will.

System

But you have no contract because it was never concluded. They used their rights under SOGA as amended by their T&Cs to cancel it

lucy03

Suited72 wrote: »

I thought the sale contract meant I was entitled to ask for the goods to be supplied? I didnt accept a refund, they did that against my will.

If the retailer breached the contract they will be expected to put you back in the position you were in before. So you might be able to claim a few pounds for phone calls and possibly, although with some difficultly, you can try to claim loss of bargain to show that their actions meant you have spent more money in concluding the contract but you had to use a different retailer.

That's the realistic limit to what the court can do. I don't think legally that the sale contract has even commenced here, but it doesn't really matter anyway if it had because you've been restored to the position that you were in.

I imagine the retailer will ask for a summary judgement, and I suspect it will be granted. Even with the small claims track the judge can, if they desire and it's unlikely, ask for money to be paid into court if the case continues under spurious grounds. I'd be very careful and personally I wouldn't pursue the case beyond waiting to see if the retailer offers anything out of court.

frugal_mike

If the contract was concluded and then breached I was under the impression that that the breached had to put the other party back into the position they were in before the breach (i.e the owner of the product for the contracted price), not back into the position they were in before the contract concluded.

But I agree with majority of other opinions here, its far from certain that this contract has concluded. Even if the contract did conclude it does not appear to have been breached since there are terms allowing the seller to avoid their obligations in the case of a mis-price. There is a claim that this may be unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts act maybe, but I'm not certain of that either. I'm interested to know what a judge would say.