Can a retailer force me to have a refund?

Nessun_Dorma

JethroUK wrote: »

Yes nessessarily
They are 100% guilty of 'breech of contract'
Maximum liability in any court in this land would be 100% refund

Or fulfilment of said contract.

JethroUK

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Or fulfilment of said contract.

They can choose whether or not to full fill a contract
They have already chosen not to
The consequence is 'breech of contract'
Take them to court
Judge will assess 'the damages' for said breech to make the OP whole again
= 100% refund
Ta Daaaaaa

Or Save yourself and court time and take the refund

Company/lawyers know all this

The real answer to all this is to shop with a company that give a toss
Like Tesco or Argos that have a very high profile, very good customer relations that they want to maintain
For sure either of these would value the customer above the one shot profit on a single item

DandelionPatrol

JethroUK wrote: »

They can choose whether or not to full fill a contract
They have already chosen not to
The consequence is 'breech of contract'
Take them to court
Judge will assess 'the damages' for said breech to make the OP whole again
= 100% refund
Ta Daaaaaa

Nope. Judges are able to order specific performance and do so on occasion.

If the money has been taken, then the contract is formed and in principle, the order could be either for specific performance or for loss of bargain.

In this instance, the scale of the problem means that it is unlikely to go to court, so the point is moot.

The-Truth

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

There is no mistake here. 'Mistake' is retailer marking a wrong price. In this case, they took a calculated risk and are now selling at a loss

You're saying it was a deliberate calculated mistake?

If so then technically what you're saying is libellous. Are you sure you what to make those potentially false illegal claims?

unholyangel

The-Truth wrote: »

You're saying it was a deliberate calculated mistake?

If so then technically what you're saying is libellous. Are you sure you what to make those potentially false illegal claims?

The way I read the comment was that rather than being a mistake in the pricing (which is usually what we see on here, for example retailers pricing a £500 item at £99 by mistake), that the retailer have sold an item at a genuine offer price they had, just subsequently they weren't able to get more stock at the offer price.

Only certain types of mistake will invalidate a contract. It would upset the balance if the retailer can dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis - just because it suits them not to supply what was agreed when the contract would have been binding on the consumer. In order to be fair/balanced, it needs to be equally binding on both parties.

Also, I don't recall the retailer being named in this thread - so if my recollection (about retailer not being named) is correct, even if false accusations were being made, nothing libellous about them.

DandelionPatrol

The-Truth wrote: »

You're saying it was a deliberate calculated mistake?

If so then technically what you're saying is libellous. Are you sure you what to make those potentially false illegal claims?

No, I am not saying it was deliberate attempt to deceive, for which there is no evidence

I am saying they took a calculated risk that they would get stock at the previous price. That is not libellous.

I can't believe that you could twist what I said to this and I am amazed that someone was daft enough to thank you for it.

Nessun_Dorma

JethroUK wrote: »

They can choose whether or not to full fill a contract
They have already chosen not to
The consequence is 'breech of contract'
Take them to court
Judge will assess 'the damages' for said breech to make the OP whole again
= 100% refund
Ta Daaaaaa

Or Save yourself and court time and take the refund

Company/lawyers know all this

The real answer to all this is to shop with a company that give a toss
Like Tesco or Argos that have a very high profile, very good customer relations that they want to maintain
For sure either of these would value the customer above the one shot profit on a single item

I'll give you an analogy, because I know we all those, don't we.

If, for example, I contract a builder to construct a conservatory for me and we agree on a price of £10,000. The builder starts the work, but doesn't complete it, citing costs as a reason, stating that it is going to cost another two thousand pounds.

As a contract exists between him and me, for him to provide me with a service for an agreed price (assuming all relevant clauses are in place to say that the price agreed is full and final). I now have a number of options, I can let him get away with it (which we all know wouldn't happen ), I could finish the pork myself, or I could get another builder in, to complete the job and then sue the original builder for my costs. This is something that already is in tort, someone fails to complete a job, you someone in to finish it off and you sue the original contractor for the difference, as long as you take all reasonable steps to mitigate any of the losses incurred, for example getting several quotes and employing the best in terms of cost, time and quality.

So, to segue nicely into the OP's dilemma, he could (based upon the above premise), source the goods, either from the wholesaler (if they want to sell him the items), or from another retailer, obtain the cheapest possible price and sue the original contractor for the difference in cost.




Sorry, forgot to add..............Ta Daaaaaa