Are Dabs in breach of contract?

TooFatToSurf wrote:

---
I am sending them a letter giving them the opportunity to complete the
contract within 14 days.

If they do not, I shall buy the computer elsewhere and issue a small
claims summons for the amount I am out of pocket due to their breach.

This will not cost thousands (please note, Connor), but I stand to
lose about £150 in court fees.

I'll let you know the outcome.

Simon



Remember Simon, that your 'out of pocket' is the cost of buying the same
laptop second hand somewhere else less the DABS price, *NOT* the cost of
buying a *new* one somewhere else less the DABS price.

I hope you've read my other posts about frustrated contracts before
proceeding down the court route.

IANAL but to go to court based on the limited knowledge of this
newsgroup and without a full understanding of the *many* ways DABS can
get around the percieved 'breach' is foolhardy indeed.

You may get some other form of PR from DABS and good luck to you on that
front, but small claims is a non-starter IMO.

g.

In article , nigel. carron says...
In message , Tx2
writes
Yes, thank goodness for unskilled labour.

Yes! We could always train the chimps to do it

THe chimps are all building PCs..


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , nigel. carron says...
In message , Conor
writes
Like so much of the time Nigel, you're wrong again. The last thing I
recall was EBuyer selling Geforce 4 Ti4200's for around £50. People
placed multiple orders, got confirmation e-mails, got debited but were
later refunded.

Neither of us know if anyone amongst that group enforced the contract -
but whether anyone did or not doesn't change the fact that supplier
entered into a contract by taking payment. Time someone did.

Actually one of us does know. An action group was formed and tried to
start legalaction against EBuyer but were told "tough luck".

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , Parish says...
Conor wrote:
In article , TooFatToSurf says...

This will not cost thousands (please note, Connor), but I stand to
lose about £150 in court fees.

I'll let you know the outcome.

Mug. Just to add, you can be liable for the defendents costs if you
bring a case where its obvious you'd lose. You know...like yours?


Not in the Small Claims Court AIUI (IANAL), which is where such a case
would be heard wouldn't it?

Read...

The only exception to this rule is if the court thinks that you caused
unnecessary costs by acting in an unreasonable manner. Your conduct
will be regarded as unreasonable by the court if, for example, you
bring a claim that was bound to fail or you do not attend the hearing.
====================================


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

In article , Parish says...

OK, sounds reasonable, but why did it take Dabs seven days to discover
this when they are a company whose system includes next working day
delivery? If they had discovered the error the following day (or the day
after to allow them time to investigate) I could accept, but seven days
seems unreasonable to me.

It was actually four days.

THe day of the order doesn't count. There is also a weekend involved.
THe company has a set procedure to follow and this would involve more
than one department so it takes time.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Conor wrote:

Then dabs shouldn't have taken his money. As has been said a thousand times,
by taking his money they agreed a contract to supply. If they are unable
to do this, they must compensate loss of value to the plaintiff. Loss of
value isn't necessarily the same as money paid.

Its an automated system FFS. Some warehouse monkey failed to update the
stocklist so it showed as available when it didn't exist.

While I agree with your general sentiment on this post and that Dabs
have almost certainly done little, or nothing, wrong from a legal
perspective, how come people are so quick to accept and defend shoddy
business practices and services?

It's good practice and integral to many credit card merchant
agreements to charge credit cards only when goods are ready for
despatch. While it may be automated, Dabs have *designed* the
business process and automated systems to take customers money before
they even know if they're able to ship the goods. Were they to charge
cards later in the process the whole issue of whether they're in
breach of contract would be a moot point

They're not the only culprit as most mail order companies seem to do
it but if they choose to do so because it's easier or most
cost-effective then they should be more willing to pay the
consequences when they cock up! Cake and eat it spring to mind!

Anyway, what's the point having a bloody cake if you ain't gonna eat
the damned thing!? ;-)

How many times have you gone into a shop to find an advertised item is
unavailable? Have you taken them all to court? No, thought not.

How many times have you gone into a shop and paid for goods *before*
walking in a finding out the item is unavailable?

--
iv Paul iv

(Conrad Edwards) wrote:

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.

From memory it has nothing to do with it being automated system or
otherwise, but was entirely down to the wording of the confirmation
e-mail and consideration (ie taking of funds).

If the e-mail is worded in such a way that it can be regarded as an
acceptance of the order then a contract probably exists. If a company
is not excused from their contractual obligations simply because they
choose to implement a crap business process and automated systems that
automatically complete orders.

After the Kodak fiasco most online/mail order vendors starting adding
comments to the effect that the e-mail was a confirmation that the
order had been received and was *not* an acceptance of the order for
that very reason.

--
iv Paul iv

"Conor" wrote in message

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.

One word for you "Kodak"

Grant wrote:
"Conor" wrote in message

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.


One word for you "Kodak"



One word for you - "****"

although there are similarities with the Kodak case, there are enough
differences to distinguish it completely from the case in this thread.

Kodaks recepit was written confirmation of the contract (it had this on it!)
Kodak had loads of the cameras in stock it could supply.
Kodak case was a pricing error
Kodak case still had a 'believable price' on the website - it was marked
as a special offer
etc etc

And FYI, I *have* one of the DX3700's and was involved with the Kodak
fiasco.

Regards,
g

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:22:42 +0100, Parish wrote:

Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
IANAL
and I agree that a contract was created...

however, I would add that couldn't DABS simply argue the contract is
*frustrated?*
The chap entered into a contract to buy a second hand laptop that
subsequently turned out was 'missing' and could not be supplied.

OK, sounds reasonable, but why did it take Dabs seven days to discover
this when they are a company whose system includes next working day
delivery? If they had discovered the error the following day (or the day
after to allow them time to investigate) I could accept, but seven days
seems unreasonable to me.

Possibly 7 days of a couple of hrs(well probably 5 minutes then asking
the next person to look tomorrow) a day looking around for it. I
don;t think 7 days is too unreasonable, but perhaps they could have
spend a couple of minutes emaiing the OP that there was a problem and
they were looking for the laptop in stores.