John Lewis : Mis-sold Apple Mac

Bogalot

FOREVER21 wrote: »

Oops mis read OP .

In that case then there has been a breach of contract and he/she should sus out the cost of buying a refurbished model of the higher spec. and then sue JL for the difference under loss of bargain.

Or he could accept JL's offer and get on with his life.

Given the length of time it took him to do the install, a court claim would take him months!

Undervalued

Bogalot wrote: »

Or he could accept JL's offer and get on with his life.

Given the length of time it took him to do the install, a court claim would take him months!

Quite!

As somebody suggested earlier, a Time Machine backup couldn't be easier and simply restore it to the replacement computer. Set it going and have dinner or watch the TV.

Or, if the current machine is adequate accept the discount (after maybe having a quick go at getting a bit more). If it isn't adequate for his needs then no amount of discount will make it so!

unforeseen

FOREVER21 wrote: »

No personal involvement but the legal precedent is contained in case law under Robinson v Harman (1848) If care to google it.

Although a long time ago as it was a high court case the decision set a legal precedent, which unless later overturned by a superior court, which it has not,,it still stands.

So the answer is no then. There may be a legal precedent but unless the OP is willing to employ a barrister to argue it with the inability to reclaim those costs in small claims then it's not going to happen.

BTW you missed the 1909 case. Yet again that was at the High Court which seems to suggest that any case is beyond the capability of a small claims court to decide.

However there are a lot more cases at all levels of court that have failed

naedanger

unforeseen wrote: »

So the answer is no then. There may be a legal precedent but unless the OP is willing to employ a barrister to argue it with the inability to reclaim those costs in small claims then it's not going to happen.

BTW you missed the 1909 case. Yet again that was at the High Court which seems to suggest that any case is beyond the capability of a small claims court to decide.

However there are a lot more cases at all levels of court that have failed

The op does not need a barrister they just need to refer to the precedent.

[Once a precedent has been set for a point of law then lower courts (such as the small claims court) must follow that law/precedent (unless the law is overturned by a higher court or an act of parliament).]

alumende27

Given that it appears to have been an innocent mistake by John Lewisthen the remedies available to the OP are limited.

The options appear to be rescission (return to John Lewis for a refund) or damages in lieu or rescission (the £100 offered).

unforeseen

naedanger wrote: »

The op does not need a barrister they just need to refer to the precedent.

[Once a precedent has been set for a point of law then lower courts (such as the small claims court) must follow that law/precedent (unless the law is overturned by a higher court or an act of parliament).]

Loss of bargain isn't straightforward. A layman would struggle to put a coherent case together. Balance of probability is out in this case as you are arguing a point of contract law

naedanger

unforeseen wrote: »

Loss of bargain isn't straightforward. A layman would struggle to put a coherent case together. Balance of probability is out in this case as you are arguing a point of contract law

The principle is straightforward and the case would be decided on the balance of probability.

Of course the onus would be on the person arguing they had lost a bargain showing, on the balance of probability, that they had suffered the damages they were claiming. In the op's case my guess (although I have just skimmed the thread) is that £100 might well cover their loss and if they wished to claim more they would need to make a convincing case.

Furthermore bringing any case involves a risk of losing (e.g. on some other point) which needs to be balanced against the prospects of winning.