Need help: online shop refuse to give goods

isplumm

dmg24 wrote: »

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

Hmmmm

This is a very weird conversation .... ABH tells bookworm they don't what they are talking, then DMG points ABH is incorrect .... then all hell breaks loose - wow ... :eek:

I of course always argue with myself - normally loose as well!!

Mark

isplumm

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)

Hmmm ....

This is a very weird post ... DMG posted a reasonable response to your comment -are you saying that no-one but the poster you say should respond can?

By the way I am not DMG or Bookworm .... at least not last time I looked!!

Mark

CHR15

Is there a Married Couple in this thread??

dmg24

CHR15 wrote: »

Is there a Married Couple in this thread??

If there is, I'm not one of them ...




Though I am open to offers!

bookworm1363

Well, I'm not offering now I know you're of the same gender!

ABH_3

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...

Well I come from usenet, 'socks' are an everyday occurrence there. The 'two' of you could be 'thanking' each other, therefore boosting your 'credibility', I wouldn't like to conclude either way, but it's an interesting theory wouldn't you agree?

As for DMG, still don't care. I wasn't addressing s\he\it which was the reason for the 'FAO' \ 'ping'. I was trying to attract ONLY Your (Bookworms) attention.

I'm not directly replying to DMG as quite simply, s\he\it is nothing to me and I don't care to give it further bait. It can go hungry

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.

Ah ok, I wasn't aware of the existence of UTCCR (had to google that) unfortunately 'CPUT' confuses even google but I understand 'bait and switch' and will come back to this in a manner shortly.

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.

Ah ok. All makes sense, thanks for taking the time to reply.

One thing however confuses me and that's the 'Loss of Bargain' aspect: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/111678-loss-bargain.html I faced a similar situation to the OP _I am NOT the poster to CAG however_ but I paid via debit card, I put a letter together pointed out to the retailer their error, as above listed by the OP with regards to their dressing table, in my case it was a games console for a present.

In my own case however the retailers honoured the miss-prices. Nobody pointed out anything other than take money, contract formed - where's my items.

I'll have to read the 'UTCCR' to get the answer to this, but it jumped out at me what with everyone saying 'no it's not legal to expect them to meet the price', which is the reason why I posted in this thread.

There is another thing that occurs to me however and that is we don't actually know if the Table concerned could be a 'loss leader', if it was, then wouldn't it be sensible to conclude that the 9.99 was legitimate, the fact that the OP may not have had or received a 'heads up' as to such's existence doesn't I'm sure alter the fact that it would be an 'offer to treat', his wife accepted, exchanged cash or equivalent and therefore now surely owns the table, they could conceivably goto court and charge damages for the difference in cost of getting another table of an exact type.

Hopefully you'll see why the OP's case grabbed my attention what with everyone saying 'no' but yet in my own experience the answer is to the contrary.

Thanks for your time.

Oh yes and one last thing; I may choose to ignore anyone elses 'comments' in this thread and concentrate only on Bookworms - as it's her I chose to ask the question of and ONLY her comments I'm interested in. Sorry, to dissapoint.

hayley11

Ok glossing over the little argument that's going on. lol.

Buying things over the internet/mail order is different to buying things in a shop. I used to work for a mail order company and as long as the customer was told of the misprice BEFORE they received the item (so they could either pay the higher amount or cancel) we were completely covered. Also they didn't have to sell anything, they could cancel any order they wanted without reason.

bookworm1363

CPUT Regs: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

and for a digest:

http://www.out-law.com/page-9050

Unlike the UTCCR, where action can be taken by the consumer directly, the CPUT Regs are a tool for the OFT to use, so if enough people complain about a company's actions, the OFT may investigate and take action.