Are Dabs in breach of contract?

I ordered a Sony Vaio S1XP from the dabs.com website on 1st September.
It was described as used, and with all the bits. It was about £250 cheaper
than a new one.
On 8th September, I received an invoice by e-mail. They also debited my
credit card.

Next day, I get an e-mail saying that they are cancelling the order as they
cannot locate the computer in stock.
They then send me a credit invoice and refund my credit card.

I still want the computer at the price we agreed.

What legal grounds do I have with this situation.

I have had mixed results with Dabs in the past, and accept that the CS is
poor to keep costs down.

Thanks in advance

Simon

"TooFatToSurf" wrote:

I ordered a Sony Vaio S1XP from the dabs.com website on 1st September.
It was described as used, and with all the bits. It was about £250 cheaper
than a new one.
On 8th September, I received an invoice by e-mail. They also debited my
credit card.

snip

What legal grounds do I have with this situation.

For a contract to be in place an offer, acceptance and consideration
are required to have taken place.

The web site itself could be considered an offer and in this case
there was monetary consideration as the funds were taken from your
credit card. They might argue they never actually accepted your order
and much would depend on the wording of the order acknowledgement but,
given they took your cash, they almost certainly entered into a
contract of sale and are probably in breach.

If Dabs are unable (rather than simply unwilling) to complete your
order any legal remedy would probably be limited to the money you paid
them. You'd have to slog it out in court but, as they've already
refunded you in full, your case is likely to be pretty weak.

--
iv Paul iv

In article , TooFatToSurf says...
I ordered a Sony Vaio S1XP from the dabs.com website on 1st September.
It was described as used, and with all the bits. It was about £250 cheaper
than a new one.
On 8th September, I received an invoice by e-mail. They also debited my
credit card.

Next day, I get an e-mail saying that they are cancelling the order as they
cannot locate the computer in stock.
They then send me a credit invoice and refund my credit card.

I still want the computer at the price we agreed.

What legal grounds do I have with this situation.

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.

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

"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.

"Bob J" wrote in message
...

"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.

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

"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.

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.

"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.

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 , 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.

"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