Sale of goods, contracts etc

[NeilO]

And are not the store assistant trained in the use of the tills??
If it what her first day , she should have had a more senior member of staff to turn too, in such circumstances...
B&Q are just trying it on, by flexing their muscle are trying to force Roger to back down...
there was no " once its gone, its gone" label on the item in question ( at least not in my local store), B&Q probably had several available in other stores across the county/country, and THEY said they would order one for Roger. So taking them at their word Roger went ahead with the sale and duly paid his money, with B&Q accepting entered into a contract to supply.

 

[Jake]

I would only make one comment on this matter.

Court cases should not be discussed in public prior to their conclusion.

Sub judice only applies to criminal matters, and even then, the rule isn't that you can't discuss a case.

 

[Anonymous]

B&Q have not only breached a contract but they have acted unlawfully. .

I do not agree that this is true.

I think B&Q's view will be that their sales assistant mistakenly took Roger's money thinking that he could supply at the discounted price, they then realised that they could not supply the goods and refunded the money. This is not against the law.

A mistake by an assistant paid at the minimum rate which is subsequently put right with a full refund (Roger is in no way out of pocket) is not an unlawful act, regardless of how much some members dislike B&Q (and other companies)

 

[Jake]

I think B&Q's view will be that their sales assistant mistakenly took Roger's money thinking that he could supply at the discounted price, they then realised that they could not supply the goods and refunded the money. This is not against the law.

They could supply the goods, they had them in stock in other branches (as other members were busy recounting) well after they refused to supply Roger. They made a mistake, but it was only about their internal procedures which are entirely irrelevant to the contract, which was formed when the assistant took the money.

Whether they have the goods in stock or not is anyway irrelevant. What would you think if some other retailer sold a Lie Neilsen to you at a good price and then said, oh hang on, no thanks I don't like that price after all, and I haven't got any in stock so you can get stuffed? There's no difference.

A mistake by an assistant paid at the minimum rate which is subsequently put right with a full refund (Roger is in no way out of pocket) is not an unlawful act, regardless of how much some members dislike B&Q (and other companies)

That's rubbish, and Roger is out of pocket - they agreed to sell him a Triton at £100, and have refused to do so - they can still buy them to supply him, and at least until recently it would have cost them no more than the cost of transport from another branch.

I'd stick to the engineering, Tony, because you aren't a very good barrack-room lawyer! :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

A mistake by an assistant paid at the minimum rate which is subsequently put right with a full refund (Roger is in no way out of pocket) is not an unlawful act, regardless of how much some members dislike B&Q (and other companies)

That's rubbish, and Roger is out of pocket - they agreed to sell him a Triton at £100, and have refused to do so - they can still buy them to supply him, and at least until recently it would have cost them no more than the cost of transport from another branch.

Rubbish? Roger has spent no money with B&Q to buy a router. They were unable to supply him, and gave him a full refund. Most people would simply leave it at that.

I'd stick to the engineering, Tony, because you aren't a very good barrack-room lawyer!

Nice to know we have legal experts like you around to put poor thickos like me right :lol: :lol:

 

[Jake]

Rubbish? .... Nice to know we have legal experts like you around to put poor thickos like me right

I'm not sure I have the patience for that, but most people are educatable . :lol: :lol:

 

[Tom K]

Hi Guys, is Roger still pursuing this? I understand that he is miffed but I cannot see how he can make a claim if he has accepted a refund?
In light of the fact that these routers are even now being found in various stores perhaps this has been handled badly but it seems B&Q do not operate the kind of inter-store stock finding service that some companies do, I often see their deliveries arrive on huge articulated lorries.
Even if you believe that the spotty oik with the managers badge is two brain cells short of making a good rubber plant you will nearly always get a better result by not letting that show.
A wry smile a couple of comments to let them no how disappointed you are and just how great they have been in the past I think they would have been much more accommodating.
A thought just came to mind their sales receipts state the branch name so I think he had only made a contract with that branch as opposed to the network.
Regards Tom (Who only bought 2)

 

[ike]

Roger,

You really are the customer from hell aren't you. Throwing all your toys out of your pram just because you have been denied the opportunity to snag some cheap stuff. Whatever the reams of quasi-legal guff spouted in this thread, why not come to your senses and just get the refund - simple. If you need one that much, you would go and buy one at the 'normal' price. A lot of your topics involve you getting wound up over stuff. Take a chill pill - you'll live longer.

PS. While B&Q's IT system seems to have its fair share of gremlins, I have always found B&Q staff very polite and helpful despite many of them no doubt on minimum wage. It was an honest mistake and whatever else, morally, B&Q owe you nothing.

cheers,

ike

 

[RogerS]

Thanks, Ike.

Roger (who actually is quite chilled but clearly has higher expectations than some)

 

[ike]

Roger (who actually is quite chilled but clearly has higher expectations than some)

"Clearly", Rog, I'm a pragmatist. Clearly, you know nothing of my expectations regarding anything. That's a fact. It's nothing against you personally. 8)

Ike

 

[Jake]

Hi Guys, is Roger still pursuing this? I understand that he is miffed but I cannot see how he can make a claim if he has accepted a refund?

That reduces the damages payable but isn't a bar to the claim.

In light of the fact that these routers are even now being found in various stores perhaps this has been handled badly

Perhaps?

but it seems B&Q do not operate the kind of inter-store stock finding service that some companies do, I often see their deliveries arrive on huge articulated lorries.

That's fine in the normal case, they don't have to do anything - but once they have concluded a contract, their internal procedures are irrelevant.

Even if you believe that the spotty oik with the managers badge is two brain cells short of making a good rubber plant you will nearly always get a better result by not letting that show.
A wry smile a couple of comments to let them no how disappointed you are and just how great they have been in the past I think they would have been much more accommodating.

That's no doubt right, but you are rather making an assumption that Roger didn't try that first, aren't you? I don't think we know.

A thought just came to mind their sales receipts state the branch name so I think he had only made a contract with that branch as opposed to the network.

It would be possible for them to incorporate each as a separate company, but that would be very unusual and I'd put the chances of that as being minimal. In any event, that wouldn't prevent them from using the resources of the group (i.e. the sister companies) to enable them to fulfill the contract.

 

[Jake]

Whatever the reams of quasi-legal guff spouted in this thread

Tell it like you see it, Ike. There has indeed been some terrible amateurish quasi-legal guff in the thread, which is all a bit of a cover for the instinctive reaction that you share, but I think your way is better - if there is an objection to what Roger wants to do it is either that it is a waste of his time (which is up him, isn't it?) or that it is somehow morally reproachable.

PS. While B&Q's IT system seems to have its fair share of gremlins, I have always found B&Q staff very polite and helpful despite many of them no doubt on minimum wage.

I think they are pretty good too, especially considering that they are no doubt subjected (by B&Q) to the retail sector's pretty shabby treatment of its workers.

It was an honest mistake and whatever else, morally, B&Q owe you nothing.

Interesting. Do you think 'my word is my bond' is a moral precept? Or should it be 'my word is my bond unless and until I realise later that it is less advantageous to me than first I thought'?

 

[RogerS]

Roger,

You really are the customer from hell aren't you. Throwing all your toys out of your pram just because you have been denied the opportunity to snag some cheap stuff. .......

ike

It's nothing against you personally. 8)

Ike

No, Ike, I can see that :wink:

 

[ike]

Phew!. I'm just glad you aren't one of those prickly characters that gets upset really easily.

all the best

Ike

 

[RogerS]

Phew!. I'm just glad you aren't one of those prickly characters that gets upset really easily.

all the best

Ike

:lol:

 

[Pete W]

it is somehow morally reproachable.

There you go. Roger's trying it on; he knows it, and we know it.

As for the law, I'm sure Roger's had plenty of time to consult his CAB, trading standards, or a lawyer. I'm equally sure he hasn't bothered. But the law is relatively straightforward: he's entitled to an alternative product, or a full refund and any damages suffered. He hasn't suffered any damages. They've offered him a full refund. Everything else is self-justification, pious claptrap, and rather stomach-turning.

 

[Jake]

it is somehow morally reproachable.

There you go. Roger's trying it on; he knows it, and we know it.

See, I see that being as nearer to pious claptrap, than the discussion of Roger's legal rights.

As for the law, I'm sure Roger's had plenty of time to consult his CAB, trading standards, or a lawyer. I'm equally sure he hasn't bothered.

So what? He's had some legal advice for free.

But the law is relatively straightforward: he's entitled to an alternative product, or a full refund and any damages suffered. He hasn't suffered any damages. They've offered him a full refund.

The trouble with this thread is that people want to dress up their antangonism towards Roger's stance in legal clothing, and I'm sorry but you can't. Contract law is entirely on Roger's side, and suggesting that refunds are a way out of a contract which one side doesn't like is just totally and utterly wrong, and for very good reason - the whole fundamental idea of contract is that once a bargain is struck, it has to be carried out. Otherwise people could pick and choose whether they did or did not carry out their legal obligations, and the whole capitalist system would (no exaggeration) fall apart.

Stick with the personal attacks on Roger's character - you're on safer ground.

Everything else is self-justification, pious claptrap, and rather stomach-turning.

'Stomach turning' takes this thread to new emotional heights. I do find people's emotional reactions to this extraordinary; it woudl be explicable if Roger was trying to steal sweeties from children or something.

 

[Slim]

B&Q are entirely at fault here. They should not have entered into a contract which they were unable to fulfill.

What I find "morally reproachable" and "stomach churning" is the people who are suggesting that Roger abandons his rights. Contract law is there for a reason. If it wasn't for people like Roger, standing up for his rights, this country would be a much worse place.

Please stop attacking Roger for doing something which he is perfectly entitled to do.

 

[Karl]

Well said Slim - I 100% agree.

I can't understand all this sympathy for B&Q - there must be a few Kingfisher shareholders out there :lol:

Cheers

Karl

 

[Jake]

Agree entirely, quite right.

Minor pedantic point: they are not "unable" to fulfill it as they can get hold of one from Triton if needs be, even if they have sold out now in their other branches. They are simply "unwilling" to fufill it, because they don't like what it will cost them to perform their part of the contract.