Trader is defending the claim against them - any advice?

waamo

What is their defence?

Earlier posts state the amount is under £75. Engaging a solicitor for that amount is madness.

Deastons

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Let's hang on a minute. They have a solicitor on board and are defending the case. Now it's possible they are thieves, but thieves don't normally operate like this. it's possible they are idiots, but solicitors, however bad, tend to understand basic law. I suspect it's much more likely that they have what they deem a defensible case.

How much money are we talking about?

The guy we took to court had a solicitor. We actually wrote them a very frank "We just don't see how you're going to win this" type letter, and clearly pointed out the reasons (aka the law) but it went all the way to court.

We even wrote to the defendant reminding them that they wouldn't be able to claim the solicitor's fees from us regardless.

I think some solicitors just want to take the money. And some people are stubborn enough.

But I am aware to OP is continuing to ignore the "What is their defence" question, so I suspect there's a little more to this.

SnowTiger

A previous post by the OP suggests who the trader might be.

How long ago was the purchase and how was payment made? A chargeback might have been a quicker and easier way to get a refund.

I have a feeling there's more to this story than we've been told.

What's the distance to the defendant's store got to do with the case?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

OK, well if it's Sports Direct, they may be a bunch of !!!!!!!s but they are a company concerned only with money and they are not staffed entirely by fools. If they are defending a case for less than £75, it will cost them a lot more than that to do so.

Therefore if they are defending it they are doing it out of principle, even if the principle is only "if we let them get away with this, everyone will try it and we will lose more money in the long run".

arcon5

The judge will establish to the basic facts of the case. The defendant will have an opportunity to put forth a defence and the claimant will have the opportunity to put forth the claim.
Each party will have the opportunity to question the other party.
Throughout the judge will ask questions and discuss any necessary or relevant point as required to help him when determining who to award what.

sezzybear

Thank you all. I will report back in due course. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

sezzybear wrote: »

Thank you all. I will report back in due course. Keep your fingers crossed for me.

Why would anyone do that? You haven't given any details of your case. You could be entirely in the wrong.

waamo

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Why would anyone do that? You haven't given any details of your case. You could be entirely in the wrong.

Indeed. I find it difficult to believe Sports Direct would refuse to send goods and refuse a refund for no apparent reason. They have then decided to defend their position.

There is clearly more to this than meets the eye so sight of the claim and the defence would enable people to give a more informed opinion.

Gavin83

I agree with a lot of the others here, without the correct information this thread is completely pointless and all the advice given will have to be disregarded. You've been asked several times what their defence is and seem unwilling to answer this very vital question.

sezzybear

Thank you all - my original query was regarding whether I would get a chance to tell the court that that the defence was factually incorrect and to whether I should send the correspondence that the trader has not sent to the court. I didn't actually ask for advice on the merits of my claim, although I am very grateful for any and all advice given so far.


I have had the answer to my original query. I promise I will update this thread when the court case is over so you can all see what the outcome was.