Website Price !!!!-up - What are my rights?

Andy_L

ispartacus75 wrote: »

So why is it any different in the online retail world?

because otherwise every order will have to be manually checked before payment is accepted to ensure their isn't a price error, destroying the advantages of internet shopping (lower overheads & faster shopping)

dmg24

blue_monkey wrote: »

Because the goods have not been handed over so the retailer can take them back if they want......

Do you remember the Homebase Shed's offer last July time??

Not strictly true (sorry!).

Offer and acceptance is much more straightforward in a shop situation, and the description given by ispartacus75 is correct.

The difference between 'real life' and online situations is human intervention. In a real shop, a shop assistant sees the price on the item and agrees (or not) to sell it at that price. Once the money is taken from the customer, the transaction is complete. This does not happen in an online situation, in that the first chance for human intervention is often at the point of despatch.

It should be noted that those who are saying that terms and conditions cannot override your statutory rights are correct, but have neglected to note that offer and acceptance is actually Common Law, and therefore it is not nearly as simple as referring to a piece of statute.

Doc_N

blue_monkey wrote: »

Because the goods have not been handed over so the retailer can take them back if they want......

True....but when an online retailer does that (just because it can) despite being legally in the wrong it upsets large numbers of customers, a lot of whom will never go there again. They spread the word, and the site loses a lot of business. It's hardly going to hurt the Amazons of this world, but it can do a lot of damage to a small online retailer.

chuckles1066

dmg24 wrote: »

chuckles1066, the only person that you are making look silly or naive is yourself.

blue_monkey has fully illustrated and backed up all of the points that they have made. You have not done this with any of your points, except from saying 'this is what A Level students are taught'.

If you are so sure that blue_monkey's own t&c's are unlawful, then perhaps you could take this as an opportunity to demonstrate your legal abilities, and sue them (sorry blue_monkey!)?

Erm, I haven't transacted any business with him so how can I and why would I want to I sue him?

I'm not a single mum chancing her arm for anything and everything she can get for nothing.

dmg24

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Erm, I haven't transacted any business with him so how can I and why would I want to I sue him?

I'm not a single mum chancing her arm for anything and everything she can get for nothing.

Are you saying that the OP is? Even if they are a single mum, does that have any influence on their question?

Again chuckles1066, you are making yourself look silly, nobody else.

geordie_joe

dmg24 wrote: »

It should be noted that those who are saying that terms and conditions cannot override your statutory rights are correct, but have neglected to note that offer and acceptance is actually Common Law, and therefore it is not nearly as simple as referring to a piece of statute.

But you are supporting someone who clearly says there is no contract until the goods are despatched, how simple is that?

You can't say for one side it is simple, no contract until the goods are despatched, and say to the other "it is not nearly as simple as referring to a piece of statute".

Either it is written in law, and therefore simple, or it is not written and therefore not so simple. If it is not written and not so simple who is to say the retailer is right?

chuckles1066

dmg24 wrote: »

Are you saying that the OP is?

You're a Guardian reader aren't you?

I can't see anywhere in anything I posted that remotely allured to the OP being a single mum?

chuckles1066

dmg24 wrote: »

It should be noted that those who are saying that terms and conditions cannot override your statutory rights are correct, but have neglected to note that offer and acceptance is actually Common Law, and therefore it is not nearly as simple as referring to a piece of statute.

Define "acceptance"; and I mean the legal definition not that defined by Mickey Mouse T&C's.

Removing money from someone's account sure seems like they've accepted their offer for the goods in question.

Or do you disagree?

Maybe you believe they can take money from someone's bank account and maybe refund it a few days later - if they feel like it and if someone can be bothered to process the refund.

You're a Government's dream......

blue_monkey_2

OK, I can't be bothered to argue about it to be honest as it is going around in circles. But, just to explain something further....

When people pay their payment goes through a gateway - most of the time this is not hosted by the Retailers merchant so the retailer does not get to see the order or the money the money right away. How do they intercept an order they cannot see. Not everyone has the set up I do - they probably do not have the time, but this would mean that very single Payment Gateway would be rendered totally useless and retailers would not be using them. As some are hosted by banks this then costs the banks money so it is never going to happen as there are probably trillions of pounds floating around in 'cyberspace' earning the banks interest. There will always be Payment Gateways where the payment is taken before the order is intercepted by a member of staff. This is how people are able to get away with glitches with big companies such as Boots, it is unlikely that the prices are seen by someone who is packing the order, it is packed and then it is gone. And this is why Boots Management have now started watching the Boots thread to change any glitches on their systems before they lose to much stock.....

Has anyone ever taken a company to court for not getting their goods at the advertised price?

I tried to get 2 of the sheds on Homebase, I had just had an order cancelled by B&Q so I needed them (most wanted them) but I did not get them, I did not get the £10 voucher lots of others got either. I was not that bothered in all honesty. I still shop in Homebase though, just because someone mispriced something I do not see why a company should be forced to sell and make thousands of pounds in losses. And I say that as a retailer AND a consumer who has lost out on a mega bargain (was priced at £29.99 and I ordered 2 - I ended up paying £550 for 2 elsewhere). Some you win, some you lose. So I guess it is down to personal choice as to whether it affects you that deeply or not that you'll never shop there again. I just shop at the cheapest place to get something.

What I am trying to say is that if retailers were forced to sell at the prices on their websites it would shut down the majority of internet trading because it would then be open to massive amounts of fraud. What is to stop someone who has got the sack going home, logging into their old companies website and changing the prices to 1p and then buying everything possible? Or to change their prices and then get family members to buy that 'bargain' and then put the prices back up to the usual price? There has to be comeback for the retailer otherwise everyone would be taking everyone to court and said dis-gruntled/dishonest employee would be able to do this, wouldn't they?

I guess until someone decides to sue a company for breach of contract over not getting that bargain we will never know and we can spend the rest of our days arguing about it and going around and around in circles. There is so much talk of it but has anyone actually bothered to do this?

geordie_joe

blue_monkey wrote: »

Has anyone ever taken a company to court for not getting their goods at the advertised price?

I think the question should be "has anyone taken a company to court for not getting the goods the company, or their agents, took the money for"?

One side is twisting the argument to be "should the seller sell at the advertised price" and the other is saying "Should I get the goods at the price the seller took, or should they give me a refund"?

Both sides are missing the point, the email says

Unfortunately we have had to cancel the above item on your order and issue a full refund due to a pricing error and now insufficient stock.
It would appear that someone has posted a link on a forum which has meant an influx of orders for this item which we unfortunately can not supply.

To me that reads "We got the price wrong on our web site, someone posted that fact on a forum and lots of people ordered the item and now we have none left."

The reason why they cancelled the order was because they were out of stock.

Personally, I wouldn't believe it for a second, but the fact is they say they cancelled it because they have insufficient stock and you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

I don't see any point in starting a fight you have no chance of winning, even if you are right. The retailer is going to claim they were "sold out" and did not know when the item would be in stock again, so did the right thing and refunded the money to give the buyer the opportunity to buy elsewhere.