This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Straw Poll

If you were to receive a letter from the solicitors of a company you were in a dispute with and it contained the following sentence:


"Our client is willing to settle the whole of your claim, as set out in the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim and the Reply (the Claim) on the following terms:

(1) By 4pm on 14th June 2019, pursuant to CPR 38.3. you file at the court and serve a Notice of Discontinuation in respect of the entire claim

(2) Subject to you compliance with paragraph (1), our client will not seek to enforce its automatic entitlement to costs under CPR rule 38.6.  In other word, if you file and serve a Notice of Discontinuation by 4pm on 14 June 2019, you will not have to pay the costs our client has incurred to date in defending this claim.
"


What would you understand it to mean?
Parents
  • What is the date on the letter you received from them?


    It seems impossible to comply with the request as stated by 4pm on 14th June 2019 as it is now the 2nd of December 2019, so unless you did as they requested back at the beginning of June they need to send another letter correctly dated giving you time to act on it.


    Regards taking on "The Big Boys", many years ago when I was involved in kitchen fitting on a daily basis I paid attention to things that went on in and around the trade. There was a kitchen fitted by B&Q using sub-contractors in Cheltenham, that I had nothing to do with, that took several weeks to complete.


    The customer took B&Q to court, their story was that they had bought the house for their son, however as it took a couple of months to finally get the kitchen snagged and tidied up they wanted to claim against B&Q including an amount for loss of rental income.


    B&Q sent a solicitor and a barrister to the small claims court to point out that in the contract there was not a agreed date by which the work had to be completed, therefore B&Q was not in breach of contract. The customers claim was dismissed, then the customer had to pay for the solicitor and the barrister.


    At this point the story got into the local paper, the customer was absolutely outraged that B&Q had sent a barrister to the small claims court and they had to pay the barristers bill on top of the solicitors and the other bills, they felt they had been done over by B&Q.


    The truth was that B&Q simply could not afford to lose the case as it would have opened the way to claims against them that would add up to a lot of money, so paying for a barrister to attend the small claims court was insignificant to them whether they won or lost the case.


    Andy B.
Reply
  • What is the date on the letter you received from them?


    It seems impossible to comply with the request as stated by 4pm on 14th June 2019 as it is now the 2nd of December 2019, so unless you did as they requested back at the beginning of June they need to send another letter correctly dated giving you time to act on it.


    Regards taking on "The Big Boys", many years ago when I was involved in kitchen fitting on a daily basis I paid attention to things that went on in and around the trade. There was a kitchen fitted by B&Q using sub-contractors in Cheltenham, that I had nothing to do with, that took several weeks to complete.


    The customer took B&Q to court, their story was that they had bought the house for their son, however as it took a couple of months to finally get the kitchen snagged and tidied up they wanted to claim against B&Q including an amount for loss of rental income.


    B&Q sent a solicitor and a barrister to the small claims court to point out that in the contract there was not a agreed date by which the work had to be completed, therefore B&Q was not in breach of contract. The customers claim was dismissed, then the customer had to pay for the solicitor and the barrister.


    At this point the story got into the local paper, the customer was absolutely outraged that B&Q had sent a barrister to the small claims court and they had to pay the barristers bill on top of the solicitors and the other bills, they felt they had been done over by B&Q.


    The truth was that B&Q simply could not afford to lose the case as it would have opened the way to claims against them that would add up to a lot of money, so paying for a barrister to attend the small claims court was insignificant to them whether they won or lost the case.


    Andy B.
Children
No Data