Sale contract rights

Computersaysno

The most likely outcome here is that irrespective of what CAB, TS or any of the one else on here says, if the op issues papers [via MCOL] and follows through they will get money from B&Q.


Why??


Because it's going to cost B&Q several times the claim to defend it [and they won't get any of those costs back, even if they win].


I'm a fan of SCC and MCOL because it saves a lot of pi55ing about with big firms who think that if they ignore your complaints you'll go away.


The thud of the court papers on their doormat certainly wakes them up!!!


BTW I do agree that it's a bit of a punt, but its got fairly good odds attached to it.

Money-Saving-King

Computersaysno wrote: »

but its got fairly good odds attached to it.

Based on facts or juts how you think the law could work?

Computersaysno

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Based on facts or juts how you think the law could work?

Empirical evidence I know, but .........I've personally taken 5 large companies to court and they'll all either settled as soon as the papers drop ion their mat or they've not turned up on the day.


Maybe people would care to share their experiences??


What about you? Have you been to court??

lucy03

Computersaysno wrote: »

Empirical evidence I know, but .........I've personally taken 5 large companies to court and they'll all either settled as soon as the papers drop ion their mat or they've not turned up on the day.

Maybe people would care to share their experiences??

What about you? Have you been to court??

A judgement can be made in advance of the court hearing as cases have to be dealt with efficiently as part of case management. If a judge thinks a case is without merit it will be dismissed by manner of a summary judgement. B&Q will likely request that here IMO.

It's true that companies often won't bother sending legal representatives in cases they consider marginal, but it's IMO too risky to assume that they wouldn't. If a company has an in-house legal team and budget it will just be considered as part of the budget, even if the cost of defending a case is not necessarily worthwhile.

The OP has already started legal proceedings so they might as well see if B&Q do settle at this stage, which is quite possible. I certainly though wouldn't advise individuals to use the court process until they've pursued every other reasonable avenue, and it's worth being aware of the hassle involved even at that point.

timbstoke

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.

It doesn't generally work like that. Courts won't usually enforce a contract because it just makes things overly complex - after all, if B&Q are out of stock, a court can't compel them to provide something they don't have. So they prefer to work in money.

If you're claiming against the order you had, that means that you're entitled to be put back into the same position as you were before the contract existed - i.e. you have your money back and no oven.

If you want to get the oven for the price you ordered at, then you've gotten way ahead of yourself - this is why another poster advised you to make sure you get all your ducks in a row before going to MCOL. What you'd need to do in that case is:

1. Give B&Q a reasonable opportunity to fulfil the order at the agreed price, and warn them of your intentions to purchase elsewhere and attempt to recover the difference from them if they're not prepared to deliver.
2. Buy the oven elsewhere. Do your due diligence in getting the best deal, and be able to prove that you've done so (multiple prices from different retailers etc)
3. Write to B&Q advising that their failure to fulfil the order has cost you £x to purchase the goods elsewhere, and requesting the difference from them, citing loss of bargain.
4. Give B&Q a reasonable time to pay/refuse
5. Letter before action (you could feasibly incorporate this into 3, but you must at all times appear to be reasonable so its better to keep it separate)
6. MCOL for LoB.

Step 6 is a good 3-4 months down the line yet.

Computersaysno

I've issued papers against B&Q in the past....and it never went near court.


They settled as soon as the papers hit the mat.


To give a sense of their willingness to fight/concede, here's a summary of my 'case'......I found an out of date credit note in my office, asked them to re-issue it, they refused [twice], LBA, then MCOL.


Job done.

Computersaysno

B&Q
Europcar
Easyjet
SCS
DFS
HBOS




Won them all, only went to court for Easyjet and they didn't show...

Computersaysno

Money saving king...what about you?


Have you ever issued papers/been to court?

lucy03

Computersaysno wrote: »

I've issued papers against B&Q in the past....and it never went near court.

They settled as soon as the papers hit the mat.

To give a sense of their willingness to fight/concede, here's a summary of my 'case'......I found an out of date credit note in my office, asked them to re-issue it, they refused [twice], LBA, then MCOL.

Job done.

I don't doubt that but companies often do contest cases even when not in their immediate financial interest to do so. Court action should be a last resort and the judge would expect the consumer to have taken reasonable steps before taking action.

Individuals should IMO only be advised to take court action when they firmly believe that they would win the case, not because they think that the firm will pay up immediately by taking that stance. There's a reasonable chance in this case that the judge will dismiss the OP's claim and so would lose their court fee.

Money-Saving-King

Computersaysno wrote: »

I've issued papers against B&Q in the past....and it never went near court.


They settled as soon as the papers hit the mat.


To give a sense of their willingness to fight/concede, here's a summary of my 'case'......I found an out of date credit note in my office, asked them to re-issue it, they refused [twice], LBA, then MCOL.


Job done.

Probably just a cost thing as to whether they thought they'd win or not. They probably figured it was cheaper to pay you, if it was defended they'd have to pay the high cost of legal staff to represent them.

I still think your advice is putting the op at risk.

You've got to bare in mind it's just money/business here, not right or wrong. They'll pay out if it's cheaper to do. I think what's happened to you in the past has given you a false understanding of how things work through basically luck.