Legal Position - Where Seller increases the price?

greenwich

star1 wrote:

I called again later, and was told that my order would definatly be dispatched, she even confirmed the delivery type I has requested!

I accept what people above are saying about invitations to treat, offers, acceptance etc. But in your case, the third stage appeared to have been passed when they told you they were going to despatch the order. There was certainly a contract then, if not sooner. Of course, in court they might deny that they told you that, but the judge might well believe you if your story is more plausible than theirs.

I think you have a good case and it should be cheap and easy for you to take them to court. Chances are that once they get the letter threatening legal action, they will give in.

Unfortunately, you will not set a precedent. This kind of case will be tried in the County Court. County Court cases do not set precedents. You will only set a precedent in the unlikely event that you or they get as far as the Court of Appeal.

star1_2

Greenwich - yes, I beleive (even when I look at it from the sellers prospective), the two calls in which they verified acceptance of order, the pending dispatch, even going so-far as to mention the delivery type I had requested (without prompting) - goes to support the 3rd "aceptance" stage of the contract. They could attempt to deny this - but I have records of the calls, people I spoke to as well as my phone bill showing the time and duration of the calls made to them.

I also understand the credit card "pre-approval" (reserving of funds) by the seller, goes to sustanciate this 3rd stage too. Just because they are not going to "collect the funds" is their attempt at "backing out" of the contract - and under contract/tort this is not permissable - unless agreed to by both parties.

Thanks for your kind comment regarding the "plausability" of the case - similary legal friends have said .... the seller might try to deny the calls confirming the order was accepted, but if a court see the cc pre approval, the full notes I have and evidence that the seller continues to have the same product available (but just at a higher price), the judge will be likly to beleive its the seller who is "playing foul" in this contract - and force them to honnor their contractual obligations under the agreement - and supply the equipment.

I wonder if people can help with one question? If the seller does not respond or supply the goods and I end up taking this to court (total difrence in origional puchase price and what they now want for the same goods - approx £750) - will I need to take this to the Small Claims court? or is this a claim for "breach of contract" elsewhere? Thanks :cool:

IvanOpinion

Nothing to add but I am finding this very interesting so only adding this post simply to get subscribed to this thread.

Ivan

greenwich

I have never sued anyone but I believe you would do it in the small claims court. You would sue for the difference between what they agreed to sell you the goods for and what they cost in the market now, plus the court fee. You can do it online here: https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

BTW, Ivan, you can subscribe to a thread just by clicking on the Thread Tools button near the top of the 1st post.

greenwich

I forgot to mention that the small claims court is a part of the County Court. I think technically it's known as the 'small claims track' in the County Court.

teeceeare

As well as the argument that there had in fact been an acceptance, and a contract of sale formed, also check out, as a precaution in case they establish non-acceptance, whether you have a case that their terms and conditions are non-binding for not being sufficiently brought to your attention (see my earllier comments).

As they will be able to supply the item, you may wish to sue for Specific Perfomance of the contract, ie an Order that they be required to deliver up the item on your paying the price at the time. However, you cannot do that on Money Claim Online since that is only if you just sue for the balance of the price. MCO is very limited as a service. It issues for you at a central county court, I think its Bedford, but then its transferred to the court local to the Defendant and all online functionality ceases. Its easier to just pop in to your local County Court and get someone to help you.

You should write and give them seven days to deliver. If you do go ahead on MCO then I suggest you prepare the forms but before you formally click to issue you take a screenshot and attach it to your letter to demonstrate the seriousness of your intent,

star1_2

Just a quick update (and thanks for everyones additional comments/help)

Trading Standards a now investigating .... they are 'considering' if there is a criminal case to answer. The officer said 100% there is a contract to buy/sell in law. He said currently they are in "breach of their agreement to supply" (now a legal matter)

The only point they may attempt to rely upon is one of their terms in their T&C's - The officer I spoke to .... said "currently we are speculating they may rely upon this term (as they have not refered to this todate), and anyway this term is un-lawful" - the officer went on to explain he's seen other cases of this type that have seen the seller sucessfully prosicuted. Only issus is a successfull criminal prosicution will not gurantee that I would get my goods - this would be a seperate matter that would involve me lodging a seperate civil matter (refering to the criminal matter) to get my goods (or compensation for the diffrence), although a successful criminal prosicution would see my civil matter (effectivly) become just a formality.

Anyway .... looks like, the sellers failaure to supply is going to get them in real trouble ..... :eek:

odowdchr

star1 wrote:

I also understand the credit card "pre-approval" (reserving of funds) by the seller, goes to sustanciate this 3rd stage too. Just because they are not going to "collect the funds" is their attempt at "backing out" of the contract - and under contract/tort this is not permissable - unless agreed to by both parties.

What a great thread.
I've often been annoyed by companies using this credit card "authorisation" without actually claiming the money....and what it actually means in law.
Twice (online) I've found and ordered goods which have had a credit card "authorisation" put on them, then the supplier has backed out without supplying the goods, once after having an authorisation on hold for 10 days.
These weren't obvious pricing errors, just items that they decided they could get more money for by raising the price...or the stocklist was outdated on their websites.
Although the supplier hasn't actually taken the money, it's still denying the customer the opportunity to use that credit on something else because the authorised amount is immediately subtracted from your credit limit (In effect....that money HAS been claimed until the authorisation is rescinded and the credit reappears)

If they're continually allowed to get away with it then there's no need for them to improve their stock control systems or price checking methods.....they can cancel or fulfill orders at will by relying on often illegal T+C's as protection while the potential customer can take a running jump for all they care.
This is doubly important now that it's becoming pretty obvious that some unscrupulous online companies often produce very enticing offers to attract people onto their websites....the deals then get passed around sites such a MSE.....then the supplier fails to fulfil the orders but they've benefitted from free advertising and attracted a huge increase in website traffic. Sod a few disgruntled customers.

It seems unfair that their merchant systems can automatically gain an authorisation on a customer's credit card but at the same time can't guarantee their own stock or prices? It's even more important now that any Jack-the-lad can buy an e-commerce payment tool and upload it to a website and start taking money.

Perhaps the law needs to be updated in that only companies with quality assessed stock/pricing systems are allowed to submit automated credit card claims? If they haven't got those systems in place then they shouldn't be allowed to claim authorisation until they've guaranteed the deal and price?

star1_2

Yes - completly agree, and the number of companies who send out mail-shots, just to follow the link and find stock is NILL. I share your same opinion that it's all a rouse to get traffic/orders on their site (even if it is for other products).

In this particluar case - the on-line seller, boasts significantly that their systems are automatically linked (both stock levels and price) to Guranttee that what the buyer see's when they order is accurate. They even have online flash-media graphics illustrating this "claim" (both related to price and stock levels) .... even if their excuse to me is true (which I don't accept), they need to remove their sales claims (used to attract business), as it's just not true .... "their systems are not accurate, nor are the prices or stock levels correct".

Latest - Trading Standards have been fantastic, they have told me they are now officially approaching the company, for their "comment" on their handling of this matter.

star1_2

For anyone who fancies an update! :cool:

Trading Standards are persuing the trader (apparently under pricing miss-discriptions legislation). The TS officer I've spoken to confirmed they are breaking the law, in addition they've refused to fully coperate with TS, which is a further "nail in their coffin"!. TS are now to see if its "in the public interest" to prossicute them - I await confirmation in this point, regardless or not (if TS take this to court). TS - have said the support I have from my CC company, themselves (TS) and the law - this will almost be certainly enough to get an award in my favour for "breach of contract" in court .... plus costs and reasonable expenses !!

I'm in correspondance with the vendor - and just poised to lodge the matter in court, if they don't settle imminatly - we'll meet before the judge!!!! :rolleyes: