Legal Position - Where Seller increases the price?

star1_2

Stonk - Yes .... you're right many T&C's by companies 'try' to give themselves a 'get-out', but the law of contract and tort is clear in what a "legal contract" consists of - when (i) invitation (by the seller based on description/price) (ii) offer (by the purchaser), and (iii) acceptance (where the seller accepts the offer) - are established the legal contract is then existance.

Parties not wanting to go ahead with the contract often argue what constities "the proof" of each of the 3 steps above, or say they have clauses in their T&C's giving them "opt-out's". Law of statute, contract & tort does not allow for these to overide the basic elements of "a contract".

A legal friend has told me - the UK would be in chaos if "contract law" could be simply over-ridden by a companies own T&C's, if this was the case - pricing of goods would become meaningless, people would start demanding reductions after paying for shopping, and companies could increase prices after agreements to provide goods or services had been agreed.

I've learnt and reseached a great amount on this matter, been given loads of professional opinion - in one publicised case a furniture retailer advertised an item, a customer bought it (the retailer was to deliver it), the customer paid for it on a credit card (having the monies pre-approved from the card, for later collection upon dispatch of the goods), just before the customer left the store the retailer appologied and said the item actually cost more money than they had been charged. The customer refused to pay the new price, the retailer refused to deliver the goods and claimed there was no contract. When the customer took the matter to court "for breach of contract", the retailer was forced to deliver the product at the origional product at the initial price - they also had to pay costs and basic compensation.

I've been told my situation is the same, and my evidence supports the same as above ;-) I guess time will tell, and see what has to happen !! :rolleyes:

Debt_Free_Chick

star1 wrote:

Stonk - Yes .... you're right many T&C's by companies 'try' to give themselves a 'get-out', but the law of contract and tort is clear in what a "legal contract" consists of - when (i) invitation (by the seller based on description/price) (ii) offer (by the purchaser), and (iii) acceptance (where the seller accepts the offer) - are established the legal contract is then existance.

Agreed, but as I understand it, the question is at what point does (iii) Acceptance occur. If a product is advertised on a website at £40, then that's generally an invitation to treat. I choose to put that in my basket and that's classed as an offer by me to pay £40 for that product.

At this point in time, there has been no contract as the seller has not accepted my offer.

Again, my understanding is that at this point the seller can counter offer. That they can, indeed, tell me that they've sold out of the stock they had on offer for £40, but they've got new stock at £50!

The point about the T&Cs is that they sometimes give the buyer more rights, so that acceptance is deemed to have taken place, once they "confirm" that they want to buy, via the website (i.e. once they "Checkout"). Others state that acceptance is the point at which your card is debited with the purchase price.

This is why the T&Cs are actually important, especially for an internet sale, as they should state the point at which acceptance is deemed to have occurred.

Without acceptance, you have no valid contract.

Regards

star1_2

Stugib - yes (thanks), apparently - if the price is "feasable" ie. not £1 for a computer, but substacially more (which it was in my case), there are no grounds for the seller to take.

Pin - yes (thanks too), from what i've been told taking of money, or the intention to take it (ie. pre-clerance on a CC), is (in my case) is proof the seller "accepted" my "offer" make against their initial "invitation". This goes hand-in-hand with the other evidence I have (which substanciates my claim).

"Performance"? - I guess you're refering to each party 'doing' what they said they would in the "contract" (ie. the seller providing/delivering goods? and the buyer paying), and hence in my case the failaure to delivery the goods is "breach of contract by the seller"?

trickytrolleys

I agree with Star - two elements of the contract have to be the loss / gain element. EG: The company "LOSE" the product but "gain" the money and vice versa with purchaser, but internet trading, to my (limited) contract knowledge has not been really tested in court for there to be an authorative answer (i am open to correction here) but the above are DEFINITELY the required ingredients of a contract. It would appear that the OP does indeed have a valid contract.

star1_2

Debt_Free_Chick - (yes too & thanks)

As you suggest - parties who don't want to "abide by a contract" argue that the three steps have not been entered into. In my case, I say they have (Consumer Direct, my Credit Card company and legal friends) say this too.

I completly argee with you - you choose to put an item in your basket, and pay (there is no contract), you press pay and put in your CC details (there is still no contract), but when the seller pre-clears your CC for the amount (the contract is formed) - they should (and can not) say the item is now not yours, similary you can not refuse to have them (unless you call upon distance selling regs).

Example: If you went to Comet, saw a TV and wanted to buy it, checked the price tag, took it to the checkout, handed over your credit card, checked the price, entered your pin - the goods are then sold, they are yours. Comet could not then stop you as you walked out telling you the item was now a higher price !! Similarly if the item was going to be delivered, you did all of the above (but just did'nt physically have the item in your hands), and Comet said the price had gone up - this would not be permitted for the aformentioned reasons.

Regarding T&C's .... I agree .... they sometimes give the buyer more rights (than law of contract permitts) eg. to return goods within certain days, re-stocking charges, if returned, somtimes conditions related to deliveries etc. But if any T&C's mention undermining anyones statutory legal rights (eg. Contract/Tort law) this woud be regarded as an un-lawful clause, and could be challanged as that in a court.

** It's worth noting - that when you buy anything with a credit card, when your card is 'swiped' it is actually a process of 'pre-authorising' that sum to be deducted sometime in the future. When the retailer (merchant) runs a 'batch process' they then "call upon" the pre-authorisations to be totaled up deducted from the credit card companies, who in-turn bill us. Thats why sometimes credit card pruchases can differ in date charged to your bill from the date you actually made the purchase. As the credit card companies told me - "you don't think that Asda get a seperate bank transfer, each time someone swipes a card to buy somthing - they just accumulate all the 'pre-authorisations' and then at the end of a trading day and get one large lump-sum transfer" :rolleyes:

star1_2

Mcelhinney - I've never heard of "lose" and "gain" - but I like it.... and agree with the idea ;-)

If I do have to take this to court - I might be the first internet case of this type, but in convential type sales - there are some similar cases that set the precident. I can refer to these whichs makes my claim significally more straightforward, and almost certain that a court would just follow the previous decisions in-favour of the buyer ! (Given this - Consumer Direct suggested it would be rather foolish / brave of the purchaser to attempt to allow this matter to continue given the precidents that exist in this type of dispute and the court decisions made) !

This could be rather intresting - both myself and the seller would become a "named legal precident" for an internet selling case of this nature ! Students would be refering to my name and that of the seller for years to come !! :rolleyes:

trickytrolleys

Thanks Star, The loss / gain bit is not my idea, its a legal fact - I am a law student (for my sins) !! Good luck with it.

trickytrolleys

star1 wrote:

This could be rather intresting - both myself and the seller would become a "named legal precident" for an internet selling case of this nature ! Students would be refering to my name and that of the seller for years to come !! :rolleyes:

I look forward to bringing you up in court!! LOL

star1_2

Good luck with your studies .... and thanks for educating me about loss and gain !! :cool:

If I make it to court and set a legal precident ..... I'll do my best to get MSE mentioned as part of and settlement statement ..... somthing like the speech when receiving an oscar ..... "and I would like to thank my family, friends and all those at MSE for their support and advice throughout this case" ....

trickytrolleys

Do a lap of honour around the room!! That would be funny!!