Help lower price charged now they want the difference

Chunkywannabun

Hope someone can help with this.

My dad bought a camera from www.ikit.net on sunday. It was a Sony camera he has been looking at and costs about £350. He saw it on the site for £190 and bought and paid for it straight away on Sunday. Monday morning he e-mailed them to see if he could change the delivery address only to be told that the price wasn't the right one and that he needed to pay the difference (an extra £160) or they could refund his money.
Naturally he isn't going to pay the difference and believes he is entitled to the camera at the price bought. They now won't reply to emails or phone calls.

I'm sure Trading standards states that if bought at that price they then can't request more.

Can someone please advise.

kristi

I think, from reading other threads, but please don't quote me, that they are fully in their rights to offer a refund and not fulfill the order if it is a mistake.

Shame though for your dad.

Kristi x

jackomdj

I am sure someone more knowledgeable will be along but I think once they take the money the contract is made so your price would stand.

HTH & hope I am correct.

Nicky

lesley1960

jackomdj wrote: »

I am sure someone more knowledgeable will be along but I think once they take the money the contract is made so your price would stand.

HTH & hope I am correct.

Nicky

No I dont think you are ,there is no contract until the item is dispatched

dazzer68

i thought once you had paid and the 'shopkeeper' had accepted the money the contract between customer and seller was accepted. i would think they have to now send it to you, as youve paid for it.id contact trading standards to check if i were you, and tell the company you are doing so.see what they say then!

vaio

From what I remember a contract needs three things: an invitation to treat, an offer and an acceptance. The web site is the invitation, your order is the offer and taking the money from your card is the acceptance.

I had the same issue on some mis-priced 1tb drives from apple (I think).

When I looked into it they had only "reserved" the money rather than actually taking it off my card (they take the money just before dispatch). No money changed hands so no contract although it is arguable that them “reserving” the money preventing me spending it elsewhere could count as money changing hands.

finbow

Sorry its slightly different when its an online transaction, they have the right to rectify the mistake up until they communicate the acceptance to you. (This doesn't include an automated email)due to the lack of human involvement. Most companies have it written into their terms and condition allowing them to get out of misprices. Otherwise I'd be buying every mis-price that appeared on HUKD but most of them are not honoured.

http://www.out-law.com/page-394

EDIT : Saying that, just noticed this website is based in Honk Kong (hense the selling of unlocked Iphones and the warning in the terms and conditions that manufacturers might not honour warranty on imports) so not sure what law would apply in this case

vaio

finbow wrote: »

Sorry its slightly different when its an online transaction, they have the right to rectify the mistake up until they communicate the acceptance to you. (This doesn't include an automated email)due to the lack of human involvement. Most companies have it written into their terms and condition allowing them to get out of misprices. Otherwise I'd be buying every mis-price that appeared on HUKD but most of them are not honoured……..

I think the law is much the same for online and traditional contracts and acceptance can be communicated or inferred by action and the action of taking the money can’t really be viewed as anything other than acceptance.

I’m not sure that human involvement is needed, lots of contracts are made between consumers and completely automated systems. Think about the humble vending machine.

Mistake is a valid reason for voiding a contract but in the case of pricing mistakes only seems to work if the buyer knew it was a mistake (rather than just cheap) and “took advantage”. In the Kodak case (£300 camera for £100) they honoured the sales when faced with court action, presumably on the grounds that £300 to £100 is not outside the bounds of possibility for a special offer. About the same time Argos (£300 TV for £3) used the mistake get out as it would have been obvious to any buyer it was a mistake.