SO ANNOYED! Declined pre-order item!

This is very much theoretical as it would cost more than a few quid to carry this and as we know it is money that wins more often than the law

mute_posting wrote: »

Is it worth stressing that this was because you had "handed over your cash" to the salesman?
Most people wouldn't hand a salesman cash in the middle of a store like dixons and so there would be no "acceptance". They would get to the till to pay and be told that pricing ERRORS (we're talking errors here not underhand practices) do not need to be honoured.
MP

before any long winded rebuttals of this post please reference THIS

the boots case was referenced with the definition of "invitation to treat" and in no way deters from the merits of my outline, much of what i read in interest after this posting actually enforces the case i presented.
There has been precedent set in the courts concerning "invitation to treat", "offer" and "acceptance of offer", it would be down to the retailer to argue that these precedents do not apply because of their form of trading

dmg24 wrote: »

The big (huge) difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you were in a face to face transaction. In that situation the law is much more clear cut and goes back to precedent set years ago (the Boots case mentioned earlier is one example).
Electronic transactions are treated differently, and look to the t&c's of the contract.

because of the precedents that then becomes "statute" ie the law and that goes before terms and conditions, in fact avoidance of statute obligations in performance of contract to consumers is an offense in its self (unfair contracts act)

I have no doubt that if this made it to court the op would win because
1 full terms to form a contract of sale had been met
2 this was not an obvious(ref argos/sony tv@2.99) pricing mistake and there was no way the op could have known it was such

dmg24 wrote: »

You aren't legally qualified, are you? Your post is wrong on several points:

Precedent is not the same as statute.

Your application of UCTA is entirely incorrect.

There is no legal term of offense.

Full terms to form a contract (not grammatically correct) have not been met, unless the judge you meet is called Joe Bloggs and knows nothing of electronic commerce.

It was not an obvious pricing error, and I doubt very much that the retailer would try to argue this point. This was initially noted as one of a multitude of points that would make the contract unformed/ void/ voidable.

no i am not legally qualified and never claimed to be, neither do i have a vested interest, i am just an inquisitive consumer, how about you?

don't see where it says precedent is same as statute, but one leads to the other as far as i know, are there any examples which go against this?

offense lol blame the spell checker

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 sorry i meant the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

And how have the terms of contract not been met? sorry is thats grammatically incorrect feel free to publish your correction

mute_posting wrote: »

I think a precedent can be overturned by a more senior court, wheras statute can't...

I get the impression (sorry if it is wrong!) tht dmg does have some legal training (either that or is very interested in consumer law)

MP

Yep, you're correct, on both counts!

It does scare me when completely inaccurate information is given on here (especially when they try to use legal terms, again inaccurately), as it wholly defeats the object of people asking for advice.

Whilst I am not discouraging anybody from posting, perhaps if someone is unsure of their facts, they should think before posting and giving someone false hope.

Based on the comments of mdbarber, the OP could write a letter to the retailer, that would promptly be filed under 'Let's Pass This Round the Office to Have a Good Laugh'. Not helpful to anyone really.

mdbarber wrote: »

Some guys on here are great at telling consumers to shut up, truth is many years ago i was in a dixons shop, saw a car stereo i liked and handed the salesman my cash requesting the item.
At the till i was informed that the item could not be sold to me as it had been priced incorrectly, gob smacked i asked the guy next to me "can you believe that", he said "no" and told me to "phone trading standards and heres my business card if u need a witness"
45 minutes later trading standards informed me that taking of payment was "acceptance" of offer to buy and if dixons refused to sell the item to me i could go elsewhere to buy it and sue dixons for the difference.
i contacted the dixons manager relaying ths info and gave him name of ts guy i had spoke to, 15mins later they caled me back to say
"come and collect your stereo", i would imagine with all that paper copies you wouldn't need a witness

I don't think that's correct (not that i don't believe what you're saying). If a retailer prices a product incorrectly then they have a legal right to withdraw the product from sale for a period of 48 hours whilst it is re-priced.

There is an all-to-common myth that if it's priced at £x.xx it has to be sold at that price.

uktim29 wrote: »

But you did ask that question.................

there were two answers given in that quote,
the one question i did ask was only answerable by the man himself
The answer given was to a non-existent question,