Are Dabs in breach of contract?

Bob J wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob J wrote:

The one thing I would add is that some retailers now clearly state
that in their T&C's that a contract is not formed until the goods
are despatched. I don't know whether Dabs have such a clause but it
may be what saves them on this case. However, the legality of such
clause would probably have to be determined in court so it's still
worth sueing if the deal was good enough.

Bob the Act of Parliament you need is the Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977.

Thanks. The point I was trying to make clear was that only a court can
decide if the term is unfair or not.

What the courts would look at is equality of barganing power. I am fairly
certain they would hold a contract existed and any term to the contrary
would be covered by the UCT 1977.

Steve

Steve wrote:
Bob J wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob J wrote:

The one thing I would add is that some retailers now clearly state
that in their T&C's that a contract is not formed until the goods
are despatched. I don't know whether Dabs have such a clause but it
may be what saves them on this case. However, the legality of such
clause would probably have to be determined in court so it's still
worth sueing if the deal was good enough.

Bob the Act of Parliament you need is the Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977.

Thanks. The point I was trying to make clear was that only a court
can decide if the term is unfair or not.

What the courts would look at is equality of barganing power. I am
fairly certain they would hold a contract existed and any term to the
contrary would be covered by the UCT 1977.

Steve

Of course I meant bargaining.

Steve

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.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

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.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , Bob J says...

The one thing I would add is that some retailers now clearly state that in
their T&C's that a contract is not formed until the goods are despatched. I
don't know whether Dabs have such a clause but it may be what saves them on
this case. However, the legality of such clause would probably have to be
determined in court so it's still worth sueing if the deal was good enough.

You got a few thousand quid to waste on legal fees to find out if you'd
win a case over a laptop worth a few hundred quid?


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

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.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

"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.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

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

Oh, and to keep this on topic, I'd go along with Steve's quoted post above -
makes sense.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:15:17 +0000 (UTC), "TooFatToSurf"
wrote:


What legal grounds do I have with this situation.

Not many. In theory you might be able to sue for "loss of bargain"
but as there appears to be a genuine error on Dabs part, which they
have admitted to and corrected speedily, you would almost certainly
find any county court very unsympathetic to your case.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"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 ) wrote...
what does e&oe stand for.

Errors and omissions excepted.

Always wondered this

Wonder no more.

Ian
--
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK