where do i stand with tesco

tandraig

its interesting isnt it stebiz how two different people can interpret the law? am enjoying this debate. I do see where you are coming from - but having worked retail for over 40 years and been a consumer much longer - i tend to be on consumers side!!!!

tandraig

stebiz wrote: »

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

so - as usual the law argues both sides at same time!!! jeez do you have to be insane to study law or does it come with time!;)
I think what this means is that each case should be judged on its merits according to common sense which it is devoutly hoped the judge has a modicum of!!!!!!!!!!!!

stebiz

tandraig wrote: »

so - as usual the law argues both sides at same time!!! jeez do you have to be insane to study law or does it come with time!;)
I think what this means is that each case should be judged on its merits according to common sense which it is devoutly hoped the judge has a modicum of!!!!!!!!!!!!

You definately have to be insane;) I do agree with you on this though. I think a lot would depend on how the case was presented to the judge. If the price was perhaps £39 -my personal viewwould be that Tesco would have a lot do to to convince a judge. But I've been before many good and bad judges before. One particular case in appeal at the moment is costing thousands, just because the Deputy District Judge at the time was not ofay with the Consumer Credit Act. A disgrace really, but that is life sometimes!!

Stebiz

verityboo

The court case concering "Loss of Bargain" concerned a dishwasher that B&Q advertised at the wrong price. They were forced to compensate customers because they took the money and hence a contract was formed. The threads that cover this and another case with B&Q are:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1439621

and

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1766491

So if they took your money, quote the case to Tescos and seek compensation

Ivory_Tinkler

Using another store as an example, M&S state the confirmation email they send you is to confirm receipt of your order but that acceptance of order only takes place once they send you an email to say your order has been shipped or they pass your details onto their suppliers. I suppose it is the online version of that term "invitation to treat" (or something like that) so in a bricks and mortar store you'd see something at a price on the shelf and take it to the checkout to pay. At this point the checkout could either let you pay and you take away the goods or they could refuse to sell the goods to you at that price (and so not take your money) maybe because there was a pricing error?

tandraig

i think stebiz would agree this is where the law is unclear. at which point does a 'contract complete' is it when payment is accepted or when goods are shipped and payment is 'collected'. i tend to think its the former. wouldnt presume to speak for stebiz.

verityboo

Ivory_Tinkler wrote: »

Using another store as an example, M&S state the confirmation email they send you is to confirm receipt of your order but that acceptance of order only takes place once they send you an email to say your order has been shipped or they pass your details onto their suppliers. I suppose it is the online version of that term "invitation to treat" (or something like that) so in a bricks and mortar store you'd see something at a price on the shelf and take it to the checkout to pay. At this point the checkout could either let you pay and you take away the goods or they could refuse to sell the goods to you at that price (and so not take your money) maybe because there was a pricing error?

The B&Q threads suggest that if the supplier takes the payment then the court decided that a contract was in place. The supplier can write that they want in their T&C's but that does not mean that they cannot be challenged

Ivory_Tinkler

verityboo wrote: »

So if they took your money, quote the case to Tescos and seek compensation

But Tesco may not have taken the money. They may only have taken the card details but would only take the money once they send the goods out. I know they do this with their CD's at least as I have ordered stuff from them but they've not actually taken my money until they've sent it out. Splitting hairs I know but might be the difference between a contract being formed or not.

Imagine if the ring had been advertised at £100 but then the OP was only charged £9.50 - do you think everyone would be advising to pay the other £90.50 because a legal contract had been formed?

tandraig

does any know this - if you purchase online and your card details and payment accepted ......does the bank debit your account AT THAT TIME or when payment is collected. this may help clear the matter up. i think personally the amount is debited at the time - in which case - to my mind payment has been made. (considering the amount of times the bank has charged me for being overdrawn when i was certain that the site i bought from said that payment wouldnt be made untill goods were despatched!!!)

Takoda

Was it Tesco VALUE gold??????????????