Sale of goods, contracts etc

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Just a thought I managed to get the demo model of my local b&q all i had to do was take a copy of the instructions which i printed of line, in to the store . Apparently the reason they wont sell you shop models is due to the fact that they need to sell with operating instructions.(health and safety). Also is it me but do you get the impression that all b&q managers ( be it that the majority are just team leaders) have a attitude problem, gone are the days when the customer is already right. I recently had an argument with one of these so called managers dressed in ORANGE and when he realised he wasn't going to win he threatened to get the police. when the police did come in they threatened him with wasting police time. Mind you still didn't get me anywhere.
All i can say is log your complaint with consumer direct and don't give in to these b............ they are not a friendly company, but they are cheap. But cheap is not always the best..
 
Roger, you're in the right.

Strictly speaking, you entered into a contract with B&Q and are entitled to receive a Triton router at the price paid.

Chances are though, that a judge would see it like this;

1. Product in question was a heavily discounted clearance line which was being discontinued.

2. Upon finding that the product was sold out the plaintiff tried his luck and attempted to order one at the clearance price, hoping that the company's systems would not pick up on it.

3. Shop assistant made a silly but honest mistake in taking an order for a product no longer stocked or offered by the company.

4. Upon realisation of their mistake the company's representative offered the plaintiff a full refund of monies paid or an alternative product.

5. The plaintive is being unreasonable in refusing a refund and in bringing this case is wasting the court's time.

As I say Roger, you are completely in the right. Unfortunately however, I don't think you can win.

Take the refund and be quicker off the mark next time!

Cheers
Dan
 
Sorry Dan but you're factually inaccurate.

Point 2 - Totally wrong. They told me they could order me one.

If point 2 was correct then I'm not that much a pillock that I'd go through all the other steps.

Andypo - virtually identical scenario when I went in.

Just to put things in perspective.

I do like to think that I am a reasonable man. I do accept that companies may make mistakes. It is how they handle a legitimate complaint that turns me into what to some might appear to be a bit of a crusader.

The whole response from B&Q has been one of aggression and indifference as typified by andypo. That's what sticks in my craw. So sod 'em. I will take it all the way.
 
Understood, Roger.

I was simply pointing out the view that a judge might take of the story.

B&Q would probably insist that they never said you could order one and that it was all an error. In which case their response could be said to be reasonable.

Good luck to you if you decide to take it 'all the way'.

You've obviously more time on your hands than I have!
 
I very much doubt that a judge would take that view - being lawyers, they come at things from the point of view of the law and see a contract as a contract, not a vague thing which can be placed out of sight and mind as soon as it gets a bit inconvenient.

The small claims procedure is there to deal with low level disputes and provide access to justice for this kind of thing. Otherwise, companies could just do what the **** they liked. There is no right in contract law to make a bargain, and then unilaterally walk away by returning money paid once you realise it was a bad one. If there was, commerce would fall to pieces - everytime, say, someone offered a seller more money for something which they'd already sold to someone else, they'd just duck out of the first sale.

B&Q's mistake (as to whether they have any stock - whether that be in that branch or anywhere in their network) is a matter for them. They can get hold of a router for Roger, they just don't want to because they don't like the price at which they agreed to sell it to him.

Whether it is worth Roger's time is a matter for him. If he can get this complaint in front of a B&Q lawyer, they will know the score (although, as I said, they may well take the decision to brazen it out in the hope that he stops at the letter writing).
 
Rich":3s7vguq9 said:
Hi Roger,
As with all purchases, if the purchaser is not satisfied with the goods supplied, (or lack of them) B/Q are duty bound to give you a full refund, if that is your wish.
Regards, Rich.

That's not actually the case, for a refund there has to be something wrong with the goods. If the purchaser decides that they have bought the wrong item for example the seller is under no obligation to refund. Traders cannot restrict liabilities for faulty goods but where there is no fault there is no liability. Equally sellers do not have to sell at a marked price if they believe or discover it to be incorrect. No contract is entered into until the till operator accepts the buyers offer to buy. They could instead reject the offer to buy and then ask the buyer whether they would like to buy at the correct price. In Rogers case it would appear that as they took his money and then decided that they had none in stock at the agreed sale price that a contract was entered into. However I wonder whether a small claims court looking at the case would would take the view that by paying in advance Roger was trying to secure goods at a price he knew to be incorrect ( I am in no way suggesting that this is so) in which case if the case was found in favour of B&Q Roger would probably end up being responsible for paying costs. I would be careful about going to law with this myself. The time it takes is irrelevant but the potential cost againt reward seems a bit imbalanced to me.

Cheers Mike
 
There is no provision for paying the other party's costs (or being paid costs by the other party) in the small claims court, win or lose. (edit: this is wrong - there is, but only if a party acts unreasonably, as discussed below)

The argument you put forward is very far-fetched - B&Q clearly did intend to sell these at the price which they agreed with Roger, so Roger's hypothetical belief that they somehow had made a mistake would be irrelevant even if it wasn't wholly made up.
 
Jake":1c5lscfx said:
There is no provision for paying the other party's costs in the small claims court, win or lose.

You can claim costs such as travel and your own time for attending a hearing as long as they are reasonable. I've done it on a number of occassions
 
Yes, there are a few expenses, but no legal costs, which would be a real deterrent.
 
Jake":30fyfgqd said:
There is no provision for paying the other party's costs (or being paid costs by the other party) in the small claims court, win or lose.

The argument you put forward is very far-fetched - B&Q clearly did intend to sell these at the price which they agreed with Roger, so Roger's hypothetical belief that they somehow had made a mistake would be irrelevant even if it wasn't wholly made up.

Not so - Unless things have changed very recently the loser of a small claim case may be liable for the other parties expenses in bringing or defending the case. This includes legal fees, expenses, witness expenses etc.
I don't understand what you're saying in the second part of your post I'm afraid and I wasn't actually putting forward an argument. I was describing the way retail sales are dealt with in law. Roger tried to buy something in good faith and it appears that B&Q for whatever reason feel unable to supply. They have offered Roger a refund which Roger doesn't want. A county court circuit judge may take a different view.

If B&Q intended to sell at the marked cost, their refusal to do so now can only be attributable to not having any further stock at whatever cost to themselves. If so was this special pricing a sale price? There are laws governing sales prices which used to eman (though it may have changed) that if stock marked at a special price has not been held in stock and on sale for a certain amount of time prior to the introduction of the special price then theseller is not allowed to sell at the special price but must sell at the usual retail price. This is tp prevent sellers from buying in cheap goods to move on at low prices which they can misleadingly advertise as a sale with which to entice customers. If this is the case it may be that B&Q are unnable to provide Roger with goods as to do so would put them in breach of the law.

It gets horribly complex for such a small claim dontcha think?


Cheers Mike
 
There is no provision for recovery of legal expenses ('costs' in professional jargon) in the small claims track (edit, unless a party acts unreasonably)- that's a fact.

Companies hate it, as (a) it makes small claims more expensive to defend than they are to settle at the outset (irrespective of the merits) and (b) it makes it impossible to frighten people off from making claims by hanging the threat of thousands of pounds of costs over their heads.

(b) is one of the reasons why costs are not recoverable, as well as to keep the parties in check in terms of keeping things simple and in proportion to the value of the claims.

Many big companies will defend claims anyway, despite it costing them more than it would to pay them out, on the basis that if they just give in they will be seen as an easy target by all and sundry, and the overall cost to them will then go up.
 
In general, the only costs that can be recovered in the Small Claims Court are Court fees and various small levels of fixed costs. However, there are mechanisms in place that do allow parties to recover costs and ultimately, parties should not necessarily be discouraged from instructing lawyers in small claims.

Many people, when running small claims, overlook the fact that limited loss of earnings, for a party and any witnesses (currently £50 per day), can be recovered from the losing party. Furthermore, the fees of a permitted expert (limited to £200) can also be recovered.
The Court is also able to order the losing party to pay all or part of the expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or staying away from home for the purpose of attending the hearing. There is no upper limit on what the Court may award. Substantial awards may be made if a party has to travel a long way to attend the defendant’s home Court, where a case is usually tried. Travelling costs may add a significant sum to a claim of otherwise limited financial value.

Consideration should also be given to whether a party has behaved unreasonably. The perceived lack of costs penalties encourages parties to try their luck and issue a claim as they feel they will not be penalised if they lose. Parties may also be forced to settle cases they otherwise might have won because the costs of fighting would be too great. If a party behaves unreasonably, however, the Court may use a ‘big stick’ when it comes to costs, to punish that party.

Whilst there is no specific definition of “unreasonable conduct”, the range of conduct that has been found to be unreasonable is very wide. Perhaps, therefore, the circumstances in which legal costs can be recovered in the Small Claims Court are not as limited as would first appear.

The following, although not an exhaustive list, gives some idea of the circumstances in which the Courts will order the losing party to pay most or all of the legal costs incurred by the other party:

(i) Where it was unreasonable to pursue a case which was speculative and unsupportable (Afzal v Ford Motor Company). The Courts have gone a bit further now and stated that if a Claimant pursues a case which he must have known had little prospects of success then this could amount to unreasonable conduct (Spearing v Jackson). In that case,Jackson invited Spearing to withdraw his claim on the basis that police evidence revealed how Spearing had admitted to police that he had been at fault. Spearing did not attend trial and his claim was dismissed. Jackson sought his costs of the wasted hearing. The costs awarded were those of the hearing, including counsel's brief fee and an amount summarily assessed for work undertaken by the defendant’s solicitors.

(ii) Where there has been fabrication of an untruthful defence (Martin v Sherwood) and where a claim has been brought dishonestly (Bashir v Hanson). It is suggested that in dishonest claims a costs order will reflect the bulk, if not all, of the innocent party’s costs.

(iii) Unreasonably contesting liability until a very late stage. A Court may penalise a party who drags out litigation to a late stage before conceding liability (Mahmood v Watson). Similarly, in the case of Pilcher v Bates the Court found that the defendant had never actually intended to go to Court and it was unreasonable for her to file a defence. A costs order was made against her.

(iv) Making late or inadequate offers to settle. There have been cases where successive offers have been drip fed by the defendant before it agreed to pay the whole claim. This has been deemed unreasonable conduct (Woodgate v Stafantos). Furthermore, the situation where a defendant has dragged out a claim and denied liability with no basis for doing so, until the day before trial so as to deprive the claimant of his money for a substantial period, has been held to be unreasonable and conduct worthy of an adverse costs order (Whybrow v Kentish Bus Company).

(v) Giving evidence at trial which fundamentally differs from a pleaded case or that as set out in any witness statements (Owen v Burnham).

The small claims procedure provides an important route for consumers, businesses and other litigants to pursue claims of limited monetary value in an informal environment, at low cost and at reasonable speed, without incurring disproportionate legal fees. However, many people are put off bringing claims or taking legal advice for fear that they will have to spend more on lawyers than on the claim. The starting point has to be that care is needed over costs in the Small Claims Court but the reported decisions would seem to suggest that there are many cases in which substantial costs awards will be made.

At which point I shall get me coat.

Cheers Mike
 
It is being complicated, but for no reason. It is a very, very, straightforward contract claim. They took the money and did not supply the goods - there's not much more evidence a judge would need to concern himself with. He certainly would not be interested in sale price regulations!

As I've said several times, whether it is worth the hassle is another question, and one for Roger. It wouldn't be something I would pursue, but that doesn't mean that the legal argument isn't very straightforward and in Roger's favour.
 
Unreasonableness is getting extreme again, back in the regions of vexatiousness.

If Roger was to be offered £100 by B&Q, but the claim was worth £110, and declined it and insisted and going to court, then he might get punished with a small amount of costs. If he had made the whole thing up and was lying and got caught he could expect to pay B&Q's costs. If he is a murderer and got caught, he would go to prison.

This is yer average small claims case, and there is no reason to complicuate it or make it very scary and dangerous indeed.
 
Hi All, if B&Q don't have any the one I bought today is what?

Regards Tom
 
Well, I've got a Triton shower in my bathroom, does that count? :lol:

Roy.
 
So I wrote to B&Q explaining that they were in breach of contract. This is the reply..

"I have taken advice from our Legal department and advise you that as you have now had a full refund and an offer of an alternative product for the same price (This last bit is a blatant lie), we are not in a position to do any more for you". Surprise, surprise.

Small claims court here I come.
 
Back
Top