Seller not upholding price match promise and hiding behind contract

maxxpayne

Okell said:

If the trader hasn't defined in their T&Cs what they mean by "like for like" I think they've made a bit of a rod for their own backs because - as the_lunatic says - ambiguous terms will be interpreted by the courts in the favour of the consumer.

A bog-standard (or should that be box-standard?) blind is a blind is a blind.

Basically it fits a window recess and regulates the transmission of light by going up and down and/or by opening closing.  On a basic level, any two things that share those functions are "like for like".

That's not to say that at a more sophisticated level blinds made of recycled cardboard are identical "like for like" with ones made of the finest silk, encrusted with diamonds and nuggets of platinum.

The OP hasn't told us why the seller considers that the blinds from the other supplier are not "like for like" with their own, but unless the differences are significant from the point of view of the materials used in manufacture, their durability, their cost etc and length of any comparable warranties etc, I'd have thought that in the absence of any definition by the trader of what they meant by "like for like", then a court might well hold that one blind was pretty much the same as another.

The OP hasn't told us what the differences and similarities between the two sets of blind are, so he or she is in a better position than any of us to determine if they are like for like or two entirely different beasts, and what a court might decide.

In my untrained eyes the new quote supplies me with the exactly the same the original business would’ve supplied. Otherwise I’d not even consider it as it’s a luxury item and we wanted the best. 

maxxpayne

Apologies but here’s the contract I signed. I just noted the wording on the bottom that I missed earlier. Ouch. Regardless that’s the only T&C I have access to. 

eskbanker

maxxpayne said:

Apologies but here’s the contract I signed. I just noted the wording on the bottom that I missed earlier. Ouch. Regardless that’s the only T&C I have access to. 

What specifically does that bolded text refer to?

sheramber

maxxpayne said:

Apologies but here’s the contract I signed. I just noted the wording on the bottom that I missed earlier. Ouch. Regardless that’s the only T&C I have access to. 

30% deposit secures the order and balance is due prior to installation. Pricing includes fitting and VAT. 

I agree the above details are correct and consent to proceeding with the work and will pay a 50% deposit.

You quoted this in your first post

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

maxxpayne said:

It is conflicting OP, I would suggest for the contract to be balanced the order is "secure" once you've signed the bit of paper rather than once you've paid the deposit and would suggest the term "a 50% deposit secures the order" to be void (or meaningless). 

You can certainly try arguing the point that you aren't bound until you pay the deposit but what view a court would take (should the company ever bother to sue you for their costs/loss or profit) I really can't say but I don't think it's as clear cut as it was originally when going off the info in your opening post   

born_again

eskbanker said:

maxxpayne said:

Apologies but here’s the contract I signed. I just noted the wording on the bottom that I missed earlier. Ouch. Regardless that’s the only T&C I have access to. 

What specifically does that bolded text refer to?

Wonder if it refers to the 12 weeks lead time.