Defence Response to Paragraphs and Defined Terms

DEFENCE

Unless otherwise stated, references to paragraphs numbers and defined terms in this Defence are references to corresponding paragraphs and defined terms in the Particulars of Claims.

Paragraph 1 is uncontentious. It is as described in the formation of the contract.

In regard to paragraph 2, kindly be informed that Bob Voss, the CEO of Dilettante, has never met Ollie Marshall. It was Ivor Askew, the Fixtures Manager of Dilettante, who attended the meeting on 5th April 2017 with Ollie Marshall at the head office of Crux in central Manchester. He entered the contract on behalf of Dilettante with Crux.

As to paragraphs 2.1 and 3, the timeframes mentioned are correct.

As to paragraph 2.1., the Claimant claims that the contract was for “transparent baths”. This was not as per the specification provided in the contract. The contract was specifically for solid crystal “Cinderella” baths from the Claimant’s “Fantasia” range.

As to paragraph 2.2, the contract stipulated payment within sixty “working” days of installation and not “sixty days of installation” as stated in the particular of the claims. There was a public holiday within the stipulated period. Sixty working days is significantly longer and the payment of the amount did not fall due. Thus, if the installation work completed on 26th February 2020, the sixtieth day falls on 21st May 2020 excluding the holidays, and not on 26th April 2020 as stated on paragraph 3 and 4.

As to paragraphs 2.3 and 5, the interest rate is as stipulated in the contract. Claimant’s calculation of the date of payment in the particular of claim is wrong, as stated above under Payment period. There was no late payment by Dilettante. Dilettante is, thus, not liable for late payments.

COUNTERCLAIM

Dilettante notified the Complainant about baths from the day after they were fitted. The Claimant never answered its phone. Messages were left through their voicemails. Claimant did not respond to Dilettante’s intimation.

The Consumer Rights Act, 2015, s11 provides for that goods must match the description that the consumer sees or examine. The Claimant, thus, breached the contract and thus, the installation cannot be claimed to have been completed as agreed.

As per the Act 2015, Dilettante, as the consumer:

could reject the goods and return them and obtain full refund within 30 days, as per Section 20;

could get the goods repaired or replaced even after expiry of these 30 days, as per Section 23:

Considering the current circumstances, Dilettante cannot opt for any of the remedies listed above. The only option left is price reduction.

The Claimant’s breach of contractual terms has caused Dilettante an estimated lost profit of 170, 000 pounds.

Therefore, Dilettante claims to recover this loss from the Claimant, and any legally permissible interest the court may grant.

Dig deeper into Concerns About Unfair Treatment at School with our selection of articles.