You are wrong. The requirement is for the injured party to be put back to the same position had the contract been completed. IE ..to be in possession of the item.

I came across a thread on another forum with input from a solicitor who's opinion disagrees with your own. In essence, he says that it has nothing at all to do with Distance Selling Regs or the Sale of Goods Act. It is basic fundamental contract law. The T's and C's that apply to this contract were those in force at the time. These quite specifically state that a contract exists between us. They have not fulfilled that contract. I will then suffer damages - ie the additional price I have to pay to buy the same equipment from elsewhere (provided I take reasonable steps to then mitigate their loss....ie if there is one for sale at £400 and one at £200 then I should buy the one at £200) and get this difference back from Argos. Reading clause 8.3 seems to suggest a gigantic 'get-out-of-jail-free' card for them and as such I would question whether or not it could be held to be 'fair'. That, of course, would be up to the judge to determine. I'll give Consumer Direct or Trading Standards a call next week and see what they say.

I have no contract with the courier.

So if the supplier used their own transport and lost the item, would that make any difference? Because it seems to me that the Sale of Goods Act is pretty duff. Basically what you are saying is that I give my money to a company but they actually have zero obligation to provide me with what I thought I was contracted to buy. They can hang on to my money for, what, one - two weeks, a month or so. If so then that's great...I'll list a couple of thousand items on eBay that I have no intention of selling, bank the money and earn a bit of interest. Good scheme, eh?

Ah but I am disadvantaged. This is an end-of-line item and available through several outlets at varying prices. Argos was at the lower end. In the meantime, the midprice items from other suppliers has gradually dried up. This leaves the items at the higher price point only available. So because of their shipper losing the item, I now have to pay a much higher price.

So what constitutes a contract then? I thought that if a company offered something for sale and I paid them for it and the company shipped it to me then that constituted a contract? Otherwise there seems little point in having any contracts.

I bought and paid for an end-of-line Hitachi Digital Video recorder from Argos. Their T's and C's state that : 2.3 Acceptance of your order and the completion of the contract between you and us will take place on despatch to you of the products ordered unless we have notified you that we do not accept your order or you have cancelled it. My understanding is this means a contract exists between Argos and myself. Argos despatched the item to me via DHL and who would appear to have lost the item. Argos now want to refund me the money as they have no more items in stock. I do not want them to do this. My understanding is that they either supply the item as per contract or they pay whatever difference I incur buying the same item from elsewhere (assuming that I take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss). Is my understanding correct? If so then does this later clause in their T's and C's act as a get out for them and is the clause fair. 8.3 Argos shall be under no liability for any delay or failure to deliver products or otherwise perform any obligation as specified in these terms and conditions if the same is wholly or partly caused whether directly or indirectly by circumstances beyond its reasonable control. Many thanks in advance.