Need help: online shop refuse to give goods

Mark_Hewitt

pinkshoes wrote: »

If it was deliberately priced to mislead, then you might have some comeback, but a £225 item at £9.99 is quite obviously a mistake, which they then rectified and refunded you.

Mistakes happen.

Had they delivered it to you at that price, THEN you can probably keep it!

Yes, you can keep it once it has been delivered. But until you are actually in receipt of the goods, then there is no binding contract. Merely an 'invitation to treat' stupid name!

ABH_3

FAO: Book Worm: AIUI 'contracts are formed on dispatch' isn't exactly legal is it?

I mean the LAW actually states that a contract is formed as soon as there's been some form of exchange in this instance 'cash' or 'plastic'. They could conceivably put in their own T&C's 'a contract is formed ONLY upon delivery of ONE Yorkie Bar, dark chocolate ONLY - NO Substitutes'. Just because it's there, doesn't exactly mean it's legitimate does it?

So back to the Law then, once payment has been made, title has been exchanged, goods now belong to the other person. The delivery portion though a part of the contract, doesn't exactly affect title to the goods does it?

TY

dmg24

ABH wrote: »

FAO: Book Worm: AIUI 'contracts are formed on dispatch' isn't exactly legal is it?

I mean the LAW actually states that a contract is formed as soon as there's been some form of exchange in this instance 'cash' or 'plastic'. They could conceivably put in their own T&C's 'a contract is formed ONLY upon delivery of ONE Yorkie Bar, dark chocolate ONLY - NO Substitutes'. Just because it's there, doesn't exactly mean it's legitimate does it?

So back to the Law then, once payment has been made, title has been exchanged, goods now belong to the other person. The delivery portion though a part of the contract, doesn't exactly affect title to the goods does it?

TY

Your understanding of the Law in this area is far too basic. You have applied basic Common Law principles, but not considered Equitable principles, or contractual terms.

Back to the text books methinks!

ABH_3

dmg24 wrote: »

Your understanding of the Law in this area is far too basic. You have applied basic Common Law principles, but not considered Equitable principles, or contractual terms.

Back to the text books methinks!

Bookworm, you've changed your name and lost the avatar.... :eek:

dmg24

ABH wrote: »

Bookworm, you've changed your name and lost the avatar.... :eek:

Is that the most intelligent response that you could come up with?

I assumed that you would revise your original post in order to give a more balanced view of the given scenario.

ABH_3

dmg24 wrote: »

Is that the most intelligent response that you could come up with?

I'm sorry, but I addressed Bookworm. If you're not Bookworm, go wind up someone else please. I hope there will be adults in discussion here shortly, please clear the way!

If YOU are Bookworm why are you hiding?

- In response to my reply, how would you expect to be addressed when you answer my ping with a different pseudonym than the one I originally addressed.

- It does beg the question however, Why are you hiding behind ANOTHER pseudonym\account?

I assumed that you would revise your original post in order to give a more balanced view of the given scenario.

Well thank you for the opportunity, but then why would I? I'm not ashamed of the question, it's pertinent to the thread and what's more I would like an answer from 'BookWorm', unless of course 'dmg24' IS Bookworm, in which case my original question stands: Why are you hiding behind another account? You can tell me, I won't tell anyone.

Oh yes and can you spare a minute to reply to my question, also does it say under the Sales Of Goods Act that ALL exchanges of property MUST be equitable. If so, how does it deal with SALES!? In this instance the question of 'equity' would be addressed by the offer\acceptance of the cash exchange would it not?

To dmg24, this is to Bookworm or whoever you happen to be. It's supposed to be an adult question, please refrain from answering. If you and Bookwork are one of the same people, please swap profiles adopt the BookWorm one, you know the friendly knowledgeable one. As opposed to the: How dare you challenge ME! profile.

I'm certain these are quite 'Basic' law questions, so could be answered by anyone 'dmg24' please refrain. I am addressing Bookworm.

(Phew, asking questions these days is quite a challenge here)

dmg24

ABH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I addressed Bookworm. If you're not Bookworm, go wind up someone else please. I hope there will be adults in discussion here shortly, please clear the way!

If YOU are Bookworm why are you hiding?

- In response to my reply, how would you expect to be addressed when you answer my ping with a different pseudonym than the one I originally addressed.

- It does beg the question however, Why are you hiding behind ANOTHER pseudonym\account?

Well thank you for the opportunity, but then why would I? I'm not ashamed of the question, it's pertinent to the thread and what's more I would like an answer from 'BookWorm', unless of course 'dmg24' IS Bookworm, in which case my original question stands: Why are you hiding behind another account? You can tell me, I won't tell anyone.

Oh yes and can you spare a minute to reply to my question, also does it say under the Sales Of Goods Act that ALL exchanges of property MUST be equitable. If so, how does it deal with SALES!? In this instance the question of 'equity' would be addressed by the offer\acceptance of the cash exchange would it not?

To dmg24, this is to Bookworm or whoever you happen to be. It's supposed to be an adult question, please refrain from answering. If you and Bookwork are one of the same people, please swap profiles adopt the BookWorm one, you know the friendly knowledgeable one. As opposed to the: How dare you challenge ME! profile.

I'm certain these are quite 'Basic' law questions, so could be answered by anyone 'dmg24' please refrain. I am addressing Bookworm.

(Phew, asking questions these days is quite a challenge here)

Oh my days, I correct you on some misleading information, so you accuse me of being an AE? I don't think I am the one with the split personality here. :rolleyes:

southernscouser

desidesignuk wrote: »

Hi, My wife spotted dressing table in UK's website for £225. On the same website, same item was priced at £9.99, so she done a purchase of it. Paid £9.99 for item plus £20 for delivery. Got order confirmation in email same day. Next day morning got email from shop saying that item is £225 and we are refunding your £30 to credit card.
As i understand buyer and seller are in contract on internet. shop asked £9.99 for item which i paid, they shoud be giving me good, even if they have made mistake on the website... Am i right or wrong?
Do i have any legal right to demand this... what are my consumer rights... could someone expert give me advice what to do... shop is not listing me... they are telling me that they have right not to sell goods and thats why they are returning money..

Please help... thanks

Am I the only one who read this in Borat's voice? :rotfl:

bookworm1363

ABH wrote: »

FAO: Book Worm: AIUI 'contracts are formed on dispatch' isn't exactly legal is it?

I mean the LAW actually states that a contract is formed as soon as there's been some form of exchange in this instance 'cash' or 'plastic'. They could conceivably put in their own T&C's 'a contract is formed ONLY upon delivery of ONE Yorkie Bar, dark chocolate ONLY - NO Substitutes'. Just because it's there, doesn't exactly mean it's legitimate does it?

So back to the Law then, once payment has been made, title has been exchanged, goods now belong to the other person. The delivery portion though a part of the contract, doesn't exactly affect title to the goods does it?

TY

Sorry, I went to Brighton for the day and am only just catching up. If you want to ascertain that DMG and I are 2 different people, you only have to check a few threads in which we have locked horns in the past, lol. Also, I am reasonably sure he is a bloke, and well, I'm not... Anyway...

I have to disagree, the law doesn't state that the contract is formed as soon as there's been exchange. More to the point, a retailer can creates T&Cs which cover their right to cancel at any point until dispatch in case of mispricing and this is perfectly legit, as long as it doesn't breach the UTCCR and this protecting themselves from errors wouldn't. If it were something the company does all the time and on purpose rather than a genuine mistake, then they may be in breach of the CPUT under the "bait and switch" principle, but this is really something for companies which are systematically ripping off their customers on purpose.

By accepting the terms (usually by clicking a "I accept" kind of thing), the consumer accepts that the company may cancel their order if it was mis-priced and accepts that these are the terms under which there will be a retailer-consumer relationship.

dmg24

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Sorry, I went to Brighton for the day and am only just catching up. If you want to ascertain that DMG and I are 2 different people, you only have to check a few threads in which we have locked horns in the past, lol. Also, I am reasonably sure he is a bloke, and well, I'm not... Anyway...

Oh pants, I thought you were a man ... and I'm a woman too!

He'll be accusing us of arguing with ourselves next ... :T