can dell do this

poet123

It may be irritating but TBH why would you waste your time just for the sake of it? I would move on and chalk it up to experience,also if my experience of Dell is anything to go by....you are well out of it.

superscaper

Squiffy wrote: »

Factually incorrect. As you should know, breach of contract can be pursued and the retailer forced to put the consumer in the position they would have been in if the contract had completed.

Well this is interesting. Exactly what determination do you think a court would make considering a refund has already been given/offered by Dell? As has been pointed out by uktim29 that already has put you back in the original state. As I keep saying what more do you expect them to do and what could a court possibly award? Dell performed poorly here but I've not seen anything sueable or a demonstration of anyone being out of pocket.

uktim29

Exactly. He keeps going on about contract law but again if that were to go to court, what would they award............a refund perhaps!

If someone breaks a contract what do they have to do? Give the other side any money back!

And for gods sake don't bother Trading Standards about this. They are there for serious issues, not to help peoples egos.

Squiffy

uktim29 wrote: »

Exactly. He keeps going on about contract law but again if that were to go to court, what would they award............a refund perhaps!

If someone breaks a contract what do they have to do? Give the other side any money back!

If someone breaks a contract with you, you can sue them for the costs of the breach. You don't just roll over and ask for your money back.

So if Dell agree to supply me an item for £10, but then breach the contract... I then find the only other available supplier of that item charges £20. So I buy it, and then sue Dell for the difference, plus any incidental costs.

Why do you keep arguing otherwise? If a contract is breached, you sue for the costs of that breach. The remedy for breach of contract is not to cancel the contract.

There are numerous examples. Kodak, hoover, etc. None of those could just fail to supply the agreed goods and give money back. Hoover were forced to honour those free flights, weren't they? Why was that? Oh yes, there was a CONTRACT!

And short man syndrome? :rolleyes: Why make this personal. I'm just outlining what the law is, you are just painting a personal opinion as fact and advising the OP and custardy incorrectly as to the nature of contract law.

Squiffy

For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages
On a breach of contract by a defendant, a court generally awards the sum which would restore the injured party to the economic position that he or she expected from performance of the promise or promises (known as an "expectation measure" or "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages).

Or exactly as I have been saying, the remedy is to put the injured party into the position they would be in if the contract had been fulfilled.

There is NO remedy in law for breach of contract to be resolved by cancelling the contract unless BOTH parties agree to it.

uktim29

Squiffy wrote: »

If someone breaks a contract with you, you can sue them for the costs of the breach. You don't just roll over and ask for your money back.

I'd hardly calling getting my money back as rolling over! If you were to then sue them you'd just be a !!!!!

Also for your theory to work above wouldn't Dell have to be twice as cheap as any other supplier, what happens if they turn up and say you can get it from "x" for exactly the same price or cheaper on eBay!

I'll never understand why some people seem to be proud that they think the American sue/blame culture is a good thing.

superscaper

I have to say in all my experience of small claims court I don't recognise Squiffy's view of it at all. They'd only ever award you your money back. They would NOT award you any monies for the difference in buying the same product elsewhere. The magistrate isn't going to care less about how it is more expensive if you bought it elsewhere. That's a completely separate issue. The definition of being back to your original position is the same money in your pocket. You can't go further than that and make someone liable for your further purchases with that money. I'd love to hear of a single case where that happened.

Squiffy

superscaper wrote: »

I'd love to hear of a single case where that happened.

Kodak?

Why weren't they allowed to just refund peoples money? Nobody lost their money. If you and tim are correct, why did they have to supply the cameras?

Remember that no money had even changed hands, as it has with custardy on this thread.

And neither of you seem willing to acknowledge how contract works. You keep talking nonsense as if it were legal fact. The remedy for breach of contract is damages for the costs of that breach. True or false?

Squiffy

uktim29 wrote: »

Also for your theory to work above wouldn't Dell have to be twice as cheap as any other supplier, what happens if they turn up and say you can get it from "x" for exactly the same price or cheaper on eBay!

As well as damages, in some cases you can sue for a remedy enforcing performance of the contact. I'm not sure whether a magistrates court can do this, but certainly higher courts can.

uktim29 wrote: »

I'll never understand why some people seem to be proud that they think the American sue/blame culture is a good thing.

And I'm amazed why people think that companies should be able to breach a contract at will. Or why they will go to huge lengths to excuse companies under ridiculous and legally incorrect assertions such as "it is force majeure" or "a refund can cancel a contract" which is what has been more or less implied a number of times on this thread.

I suggest you read up a bit more on contract law. A particularly good starting point is below, although this is based on the Scottish courts.

http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/dp109_remedies.pdf

uktim29

I have no intention of reading any links you post as you obviously have no knowledge other than what you can find on Google.

The Kodak case was about an incorrect price, not the avalibility of components! You have yet to find an exact case!