Are Dabs in breach of contract?

Conor wrote in message ...
In article , Steve says...

Sorry lads I think you'll find that he can sue them for the difference in
price between their price and the price he has to pay elsewhere since no
matter what you're all trying to say he most certainly does have a contract
with dabs. I am a lawyer

You're a ****e one then but there's plenty around. And seeing as you
can't even afford to pay for a Usenet service I reckon you're so ****e
you're starving.

I thought that after the Kodak fiasco etc that automated order systems
weren't deemed to create binding contracts...the order processing and
money debit would have been automated so perhaps no contract was made
until the goods actually picked and despatched.
Given that the item was used and heavily discounted, it might
reasonably be considered that such an item would be of limited
availability (one) and might not be available depeending how the stock
system is updated.

In article , A clever name says...

Coming from someone using a free email service, I find your comments to be
somewhat hypocritical at best.

Not hypocritical at all but rather its called GOOD PRACTICE. My gmail
address gets all the crap from Usenet but its spam filters are good
enough that genuine messages get through.

I have a real e-mail address with a domain and webhosting that I pay
for.


At the risk of feeding a troll, are you
normally quite so dismissive of people who express helpful informed
opinions, or is this thread a special case?

I just don't tolerate people who try and create a problem where there
isn't one. Yes he ordered a laptop and they didn't supply it because
they don't have one but they've refunded his money without asking and
told him too so whilst its annoying then thats it. All this talk of
suing them, contract this and that is just absolute ******** and makes
me mad as its primary reason is for lawyers to find a way to make money
for nothing out of both parties.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , says...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:31:05 +0100, "Bob J"
wrote:


"Conor" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

THey haven't got his money numbnuts..they've refunded him.

Troll? Of course they accepted his money - they, err, accepted it!



Ignore Turton. He's just a big gob attached to a bladder full of hot
air.

No, I'm just someone sick to death of snivelling pathetic ****s trying
to make a problem where one doesn't exist.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , Tx2
says...
In article ,
, a.k.a Conor says...


I suggest you go and read up about E & OE


E&OE does not contradict contract law, it is meant to cover small errors
such as a miscalculation of price or description.

It is not in place as a 'get out' from contractual obligation, such as
when an order has been accepted.

But if an item not available has been listed as available it does cover
that.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Conor wrote:
In article , Tx2
says...
In article ,
, a.k.a Conor says...


I suggest you go and read up about E & OE


E&OE does not contradict contract law, it is meant to cover small
errors such as a miscalculation of price or description.

It is not in place as a 'get out' from contractual obligation, such
as when an order has been accepted.

But if an item not available has been listed as available it does
cover that.

No, when the took his money the contract was formed.

Steve

Conor wrote:

In article , Bob J says...

"Conor" wrote in message
. ..
In article , says...

THey haven't got his money numbnuts..they've refunded him.

Troll? Of course they accepted his money - they, err, accepted it!

But they refunded him dumb****.

Good luck making it stick in court.


What? So you can get of any contract just by returning the money?

Try this one: Buy shares, shares fall, just return the money like you didn't
buy them in the first place :-)

"Dave" wrote in message



what does e&oe stand for. Always wondered this

" Grant" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message



what does e&oe stand for. Always wondered this



Grant,here is the answer to why they will not leave you alone.Sometimes you
leave me speechless,wich inusual for me!!!And for some reason you want to
share the information to uk.comp.vendors .

Mike.

Conrad Edwards wrote:

Conor wrote:
In article , Steve says...

Sorry lads I think you'll find that he can sue them for the difference
in price between their price and the price he has to pay elsewhere
since no matter what you're all trying to say he most certainly does
have a contract with dabs. I am a lawyer

You're a ****e one then but there's plenty around. And seeing as you
can't even afford to pay for a Usenet service I reckon you're so ****e
you're starving.

I thought that after the Kodak fiasco etc that automated order systems
weren't deemed to create binding contracts...the order processing and
money debit would have been automated so perhaps no contract was made
until the goods actually picked and despatched.

The Kodak case isn't a great one to support your case, once people made
i clear they were going to take legal action, they honoured the
advertised price.

--
- The email address used in this message *IS* valid -

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Conor" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Bob J says...

"Conor" wrote in message
. ..
In article , TooFatToSurf
says...

Non at all. THey can't supply what they don't have. THey've refunded
you so you've not lost out. I think you'll find a E&OE statement
hidden
somewhere.

By debiting his card they almost certainly entered into a contract to
supply
the goods at the price stated (and taken). The fact that they didn't
have
the goods and refunded the money is irrelevant.

I suggest that the OP (and you Conor) does a search for "loss of
bargain".
Ok, the fact that the goods were second hand may change things but
certainly
if they were new the OP would have a very good case.

I suggest you go and read up about E & OE.


what does e&oe stand for. Always wondered this


Dave you once post a section of Claranets AUP here it was this section!

11) The customer must not send email or post articles with headers modified
in such a way as to disguise the true source of such mail or article. It is
the customer's responsibilty to ensure that a real email address is present
and obvious to a human.

Your headers look like they've been altered to me!

No you're not a hypocrite are you.