where do i stand with tesco

tandraig

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Thats not really relevant as its in the US.

Posters are right here if its a genuine mistake by a retailler then there is nothing you can do, also they dont have to sell anything to you at any price which is why they can back out. This is why when Tesco did their double the difference back plus the item for free thing you were better to buy the product then go back to customer services. Once the money is taken they are in breach of law with regards to misleading pricing, if you ask before chances are, if it was a large amount they would just not sell it to you.

I dont know why people want to get something for nothing. It was a mistake you never got the product get on with it. However, next time you may just get in there before anyone else and Tesco may honour it.

the op didnt want something for nothing - she PAID the asking price and tescos accepted her payment - contract completed! she wants the item she paid for - I do not accept that stores - even on internet have the right to chase YOU up once they have accepted your money. even if a genuine mistake was made.

tandraig

Hintza wrote: »

It isn't going to happen OP. There have been many of these disputes over the last few years. As someone said some you win some you lose.

At the price you paid you knew it was a pricing error with the price of scrap 9ct gold around the £8/gram level.

oh - so before i buy any jewellery i am legally obliged to look up the market or scrap value of gold in case the retailer is making a mistake and point it out to them!
i think this is unreasonable. I could look up the price of wood foam and upholstery material before i buy a new sofa - but would the courts expect me to do so?
besides - stores do sell products below market value when the wish to discontinue lines and get rid of old stock - its called having a sale or a special offer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hintza

tandraig wrote: »

oh - so before i buy any jewellery i am legally obliged to look up the market or scrap value of gold in case the retailer is making a mistake and point it out to them!
i think this is unreasonable. I could look up the price of wood foam and upholstery material before i buy a new sofa - but would the courts expect me to do so?
besides - stores do sell products below market value when the wish to discontinue lines and get rid of old stock - its called having a sale or a special offer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gold is a commodity. There is at any moment in time a base price ie scrap value. No shop would sell any gold items at less than the scrap value of gold.

Not like a Sofa which was probably originally priced at £1k and could still be over priced at £100! So be realistic.

My point is Tesco are not going to honour this when it is clearly a mistake. From what I understand they meant to reduce the price by £9.50 and not price it up at £9.50.

Everyone can foam and froth at the mouth and if they really want to can also take them to court but I very much doubt they would win.

Ivory_Tinkler

Tesco probably didn't take payment for the item anyway. The card payment would have been authorised only and payment would have been taken just before Tesco sent the goods. As they didn't intend to send the goods they didn't take payment so a contract maybe didn't really exist. I only say this because when you order shopping from Tesco, you can place the order online but they only charge your card when they actually despatch your order which could be weeks later (otherwise they have hold of your cash while you haven't got your goods).

Of course, I might be wrong but just putting another angle on the discussion

tandraig

that is a fair point tinkler - but my argument would be that they ACCEPTED payment - even if it IS on hold. not saying your wrong - but that would be my argument to court. isnt it time consumer rights were clarified so that everyone can understand them? or am i just thick?

tandraig

if you read my earlier post with the supermarket rights thing on it - i believe it was aimed at online food shopping - where you order online say two kilo of bananas - the online price may say £1 per kilo but can you weigh out dead on two kilo of bananas (i couldnt and am experienced sales assistant) with computerised scales the price may show as £2.02 so the total bill will then show that. this law allows for that . the difference with the OP is she was buying one non-food item at a special offer price!

stebiz

tandraig wrote: »

that is a fair point tinkler - but my argument would be that they ACCEPTED payment - even if it IS on hold. not saying your wrong - but that would be my argument to court. isnt it time consumer rights were clarified so that everyone can understand them? or am i just thick?

Say you had a store online, and for some reason you typed in that you were selling TV's for £399 and for some strange reason the computer typed £3.99. You sold a thousand of them overnight and woke up the next day with £4,000 in your bank and had to send out a 1000 TV's - would you feel as if you had to complete the sale? It was a mistake. A court would see it like that. The court takes into account when deciding - how much you were actually purchasing them for, if a reasonable person would expect to sell at that price, and several other factors. This would be thrown out within 30 seconds.

Stebiz

tandraig

stebiz wrote: »

'A unilateral mistake is where only one party is mistaken and the other party knows about it and takes advantage of the error. A unilateral mistake also negates consent and the existence of an agreement'.

This makes interesting reading

http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol1/a002groebner.html

Stebiz

thanks stebiz - i think i get it - it means for example:
my old mum invites the local antiques dealer in to give her a price for an old clock - he recognises it as a valuable regency item worth thousands and tells her its junk but will give her £20 for it. my old mum has no idea of its value and accepts £20. is that the kind of thing you mean?
hmmm then it doesnt apply here as tesco clearly stated the value of the ring as £90 didnt they?

tandraig

but tesco didnt do that did they stebiz? they put online a special offer reduced from £90 to £9.50 by my reckoning if the computer made this error the price would have been increased to £950 pounds - in which case everyone would have cracked up laughing no-one would have bought - no harm done! if they meant to reduce by £9.50 to £80.50 then surely £80.50 would have been featured on the site? and surely they check that the items they post online had the correct details - as I always did on ebay!!! doesnt take long and can save pounds as if i had posted incorrect price would have felt bound to honour it!

stebiz

tandraig wrote: »

thanks stebiz - i think i get it - it means for example:
my old mum invites the local antiques dealer in to give her a price for an old clock - he recognises it as a valuable regency item worth thousands and tells her its junk but will give her £20 for it. my old mum has no idea of its value and accepts £20. is that the kind of thing you mean?
hmmm then it doesnt apply here as tesco clearly stated the value of the ring as £90 didnt they?

I have read about 10 text books on Mistake - and there are thousands of them out there. It was actually one of the most interesting modules I covered at Uni.

I'll quote here as it puts the answer so much better than I could

'A retailer’s mistake as to the price of an item might constitute a mistaken basic assumption and, depending on the degree, might materially affect the agreement., but there is no simple or mechanical way to predict the magnitude of pricing error needed to clearly establish material effect. A mistake as to the price by one party, however, is not enough. The adversely affected retailer must also show that enforcing the contract would be unconscionable or that the online shopper knew or should have known that the price was a mistake.

An unconscionable contract is one which “no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make…and which no fair and honest man would accept…”The contract, if enforced as formed, needs to cause hardship to the adversely affected party.Among other things, courts will consider whether the sale would cause the retailer a loss, rather than merely earn a diminished profit.Unconscionability, however, is not a set standard and therefore not a principle on which to rely.'

Alternatively, the adversely affected retailer needs to demonstrate that the online shoppers knew or had reason to know of the mistake.The Restatement uses the language “reason to know” to communicate that the actor “has a duty to another” and “he would not be acting adequately in the protection of his own interests were he not acting with reference to the facts which he has reason to know.”This requirement narrows the applicability of this remedy because there is no inequitable conduct requiring estoppel unless the online shopper knows or at least suspects there is a mistake.'

Regards
Stebiz