Selling At Advertised Price...please Help!!!

misterdave_3

Yesterday, 8th January, I was on a certain watch website, which among the long list of rather expensive watches were two watches for £4.00 and £5.70. Now as these watches are usually priced at around £4,000 and £5,700, I realised this was a misprint. However I did manage to purchase said watches at advertised price. I sent money via PayPal, I then received a confirmation email from PayPal and then another confirmation email from the store it's self, saying my they had received funds and that my order was 'complete'.

I understand this may seem like a long shot, but as I have recently been made redundant, if this situation were to work out in my favour would be a great help.


I realise the store is under no legal obligation to sell at advertised price and that this is a common misconception of consumer law. But as they accepted payment for this transaction and confirmed my order, surely that binds them into a contract and therefore they are obligated to complete the transaction.

Many thanks to all that helps in this matter.

Regards, David.

zenseeker

They do not have to honour the transaction until the goods have been dispatched.

Although they have billed you, they retain the right to refund you and cancel the transaction.

Plushchris

You might get two fake watches through the post worth no more than a fiver for the two?

riggerz

Probably a long shot but def one worth trying!! Any chance you could post a link to the site or PM me with the details???:beer:

durham_girl

Agreed with zenseeker. There is probably some small print in the T&Cs that says they have the right to refund if there is a mistake with the listed price.

Check out the T&Cs and see what they say

misterdave_3

Hello there, thanks to all who replied.

I have received this email from them:

"Dear David,
We are presently out of stock at the moment for this particular model. We will contact you again shortly to update you on the availability.
However, should you wish a full refund within the next 14 days one can be arranged. After this period an administrative charge would apply.
Kind regards
Support"

This isn’t true, they still have the watches advertised as available on their website. But this does leave me in a awkward position of laying down before the end of the 14days, otherwise no refund.

I’m going to show the T&Cs to my friend’s girlfriend who is a Solicitor, maybe she can shed some light on the legal jargon that sounds to be in my favour, but I can‘t be sure.

I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Regards

zenseeker

misterdave wrote: »

I’m going to show the T&Cs to my friend’s girlfriend who is a Solicitor, maybe she can shed some light on the legal jargon that sounds to be in my favour, but I can‘t be sure.

Trust me, they have better solicitors and the jargon would be worded well to cover their butts. Just accept that they do not have to honour the advertised price and move on.

spaceman5

misterdave wrote: »

Hello there, thanks to all who replied.

I have received this email from them:

"Dear David,
We are presently out of stock at the moment for this particular model. We will contact you again shortly to update you on the availability.
However, should you wish a full refund within the next 14 days one can be arranged. After this period an administrative charge would apply.
Kind regards
Support"

This isn’t true, they still have the watches advertised as available on their website. But this does leave me in a awkward position of laying down before the end of the 14days, otherwise no refund.

I’m going to show the T&Cs to my friend’s girlfriend who is a Solicitor, maybe she can shed some light on the legal jargon that sounds to be in my favour, but I can‘t be sure.

I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Regards

That particular story:rotfl:

Norton_Blade

Sorry misterdave, but a contract which contains mistakes in the terms is often held to be void when tested.

This would be classed as a unilateral mistake, as they were unaware of their error but you wished to take advantage of this.

This is a very good article explaining mistake in contract law:

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/393.cfm

T&Cs don't have to say anything because common law overrides all.

EDIT: As posted in another thread, read the case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566