REFUND ON GARDEN ROOM CANCELLED DUE TO CANCER

bris

ThumbRemote said:

m0bov said:

If you can't or won't pay, yes. Hence, you need to get itemised list of their reasonable losses. You can't just "let" it go to court, the costs to you would be massive. If you can't pay due to your illness, then that's another avenue to look at. 

BTW sorry for your diagnosis.

Absolute rubbish. This relies on the company actually taking them to court (unlikely), then the company winning (very unlikely) and the company winning costs (microscopically unlikely)

Nonsense. Taking cooling off periods and consumer rights during the formation of the contract all being legal (this needs to be looked at) then a properly formed contract would be a very easy case for them to win.

As for losses then they could be substantial as the amount that can be claimed equals what they would have made if the contract was performed.

Mitigating losses comes into it but that's what court is for. They have to prove how they mitigated the OP's losses but those could be minimal. 

neilmcl

bris said:

ThumbRemote said:

m0bov said:

If you can't or won't pay, yes. Hence, you need to get itemised list of their reasonable losses. You can't just "let" it go to court, the costs to you would be massive. If you can't pay due to your illness, then that's another avenue to look at. 

BTW sorry for your diagnosis.

Absolute rubbish. This relies on the company actually taking them to court (unlikely), then the company winning (very unlikely) and the company winning costs (microscopically unlikely)

Nonsense. Taking cooling off periods and consumer rights during the formation of the contract all being legal (this needs to be looked at) then a properly formed contract would be a very easy case for them to win.

As for losses then they could be substantial as the amount that can be claimed equals what they would have made if the contract was performed.

Mitigating losses comes into it but that's what court is for. They have to prove how they mitigated the OP's losses but those could be minimal. 

No, they (the seller) has to prove that they've minimised their own losses, after all it's those "losses" that they're going to court for.

biscan25

First of all, sorry to here about your diagnosis and I wish you all the best.
There's lots of important legal questions here:
Were you informed of your 14 day cancellation rights? If not then they start 14 days after you have being informed?
Otherwise are you within 14 days of agreeing the contract?

I think that this in the CCR 2013: "for the construction of new buildings, or the construction of substantially new buildings" is a red herring, as this is a shed/ wooden garage as opposed to a new building (Important as otherwise planning needed etc.)

I'm rooting for you, and hope you get your £3,000 back in addition.

neilmcl

biscan25 said:

First of all, sorry to here about your diagnosis and I wish you all the best.
There's lots of important legal questions here:
Were you informed of your 14 day cancellation rights? If not then they start 14 days after you have being informed?
Otherwise are you within 14 days of agreeing the contract?

I think that this in the CCR 2013: "for the construction of new buildings, or the construction of substantially new buildings" is a red herring, as this is a shed/ wooden garage as opposed to a new building (Important as otherwise planning needed etc.)

I'm rooting for you, and hope you get your £3,000 back in addition.

At £47K + VAT it's a little more than a shed and whether planning was required or not wouldn't negate the fact that it could be seen as a substantial new build by extension of an existing building.