Aleksandr Orlov Meerkat (compare the meerkat) soft toy available from harrods

TBeckett100

i disagree. 5000 people turning up to the toy dept whilst the shop assistant has to make 5000 trips out back for a meerkat may prove a headache.

Based on what I have read, if there is intention to create legal relations, a verbal contract is as strong as a written one.

Consideration is known as 'the price of a promise' and is a controversial requirement for contracts under common law. Some common-law and civil-law systems[14] do not require consideration, and some commentators consider it unnecessary—the requirement of intent by both parties to create legal relations by both parties performs the same function under contract.

serenawell

Really sorry but have to beg to differ, having been to Harrods toy department last weekend for the Santas Grotto even if, but very unlikely, all 5000 people turned up at the same time to pick up the toys, it really wouldn't have caused a massive problem.

It is late so I maybe wrong but

Consideration is executory when a promise to do something in the future is given in exchange for another promise to be done in the future. Consideration is executed when a promise is actually executed, in exchange for another promise to be executed in the future. Consideration is past when a promise has been given or executed before and independently of the other promise



Morally this case stinks for those us expecting their Meerkats shortly and as much as I would of loved one, I was on the list by the way. I will get over it (eventually )

Bed time TTFN

**MissL2**

With regards to the logistics... I don't mean to be rude but have you acually ever been to Harrods?

On peak days, we welcome up to 300,000 customers.
Harrods covers 4.5 acres, and boasts over 1 million square feet of selling space

They employ 5,00 staff so I'm sure there wouldn't just be one assistant making 5000 trips like you suggested. I'm sure they've dealt with pre-ordered goods previously and got the systems in place to service this.

I simply think Harrods have decided to give the toys away on charitable grounds.

The fact that the toys are already on Ebay would suggest they have been distributed to the charities. As a PP said- I'm sure they would've had all this checked out by their legal team and probably have a standard letter that they are going to send out to you.

Unless they dissolve the lisence or you want to pay £300+ on Ebay then I seriously can't see you getting a meerkat.

melblyth

at the end of the day this is not about charity this is about Al Faydd getting publicity, I'm surprised he didn't give them to the Diana Princess of Wales Charity and milked that one some more.

A lot of people were on a confirmed waiting list, I rang up 3 times to confirm they had my details and was told no problem. I then told my young niece she would be getting Alexandr for christmas, is she going to understand? If he wanted to do his bit for charity why didn't he just give the whole purchase price away, and by the way what about the animal charity he has promised a percentage too.

All this means is that a lot of people (not nessecarily charities) are going to get fat on Ebay.

This never happened with Buzz lightyear, the teletubbies etc etc and all the other 'Toys' of christmas. If there is that much demand make more what is the problem?

TBeckett100

serenawell wrote: »

Really sorry but have to beg to differ, having been to Harrods toy department last weekend for the Santas Grotto even if, but very unlikely, all 5000 people turned up at the same time to pick up the toys, it really wouldn't have caused a massive problem.

It is late so I maybe wrong but

Consideration is executory when a promise to do something in the future is given in exchange for another promise to be done in the future. Consideration is executed when a promise is actually executed, in exchange for another promise to be executed in the future. Consideration is past when a promise has been given or executed before and independently of the other promise



Morally this case stinks for those us expecting their Meerkats shortly and as much as I would of loved one, I was on the list by the way. I will get over it (eventually )

Bed time TTFN

Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847, is as follows:

"An act or forebearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable."

The mere fact of agreement alone does not make a contract. Both parties to the contract must provide consideration if they wish to sue on the contract. This means that each side must promise to give or do something for the other. (Note: if a contract is made by deed, then consideration is not needed.)
For example, if one party, A (the promisor) promises to mow the lawn of another, B (the promisee), A's promise will only be enforceable by B as a contract if B has provided consideration. The consideration from B might normally take the form of a payment of money but could consist of some other service to which A might agree. Further, the promise of a money payment or service in the future is just as sufficient a consideration as payment itself or the actual rendering of the service. Thus the promisee has to give something in return for the promise of the promisor in order to convert a bare promise made in his favour into a binding contract.

So if Harrords agree to supply an item to B, and B promises to pay (i.e. a list is created and payment is promised in the future when Harrods calls to take payment), then based on the above and case law, this is an area worth exploring.

If the remedy is loss of bargain, I will purchase one from Ebay and Harrods can pay the difference. I get the Meerkat for £19.95 and Harrods effectively donate to charity. The charity receives a higher cash sum, I get my Meerkat, everyone except Harrods who created this is happy. Simples

Siren1974

So much for the Season of Goodwill.

dazzle21

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847, is as follows:

"An act or forebearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable."

The mere fact of agreement alone does not make a contract. Both parties to the contract must provide consideration if they wish to sue on the contract. This means that each side must promise to give or do something for the other. (Note: if a contract is made by deed, then consideration is not needed.)
For example, if one party, A (the promisor) promises to mow the lawn of another, B (the promisee), A's promise will only be enforceable by B as a contract if B has provided consideration. The consideration from B might normally take the form of a payment of money but could consist of some other service to which A might agree. Further, the promise of a money payment or service in the future is just as sufficient a consideration as payment itself or the actual rendering of the service. Thus the promisee has to give something in return for the promise of the promisor in order to convert a bare promise made in his favour into a binding contract.

So if Harrords agree to supply an item to B, and B promises to pay (i.e. a list is created and payment is promised in the future when Harrods calls to take payment), then based on the above and case law, this is an area worth exploring.

If the remedy is loss of bargain, I will purchase one from Ebay and Harrods can pay the difference. I get the Meerkat for £19.95 and Harrods effectively donate to charity. The charity receives a higher cash sum, I get my Meerkat, everyone except Harrods who created this is happy. Simples

Sorry, this is a rather simplistic arguement on a point of law, at the end of the day there was no offer or acceptance therefore no contract, the Meerkats were never offered 'for sale' people put their name down in anticipation of them being released for sale.
I think Harrods should really have anticipated that demand was going to be high and liased with their suppliers a little earlier. It does however make me wonder how many ebay traders put their name down for multiple Meerkats thereby forcing Harrods into rethinking the item.

TBeckett100

dazzle21 wrote: »

Sorry, this is a rather simplistic arguement on a point of law, at the end of the day there was no offer or acceptance therefore no contract, the Meerkats were never offered 'for sale' people put their name down in anticipation of them being released for sale.
I think Harrods should really have anticipated that demand was going to be high and liased with their suppliers a little earlier. It does however make me wonder how many ebay traders put their name down for multiple Meerkats thereby forcing Harrods into rethinking the item.

by taking down names and confirming that once in stock we would be called and paymnt taken, it was an intention to create a legal contract. harrods publicly stated they would be for sale on a reservation basis. we were on the list.
harrods had stock but gave it away, again, for the £25 it costs to test the claim, it is worth a shot if negotiation fails and like the other issues i had in the past, people will soon file claims if one wins and i suspect this would be high profile.

koolkid

This is a genuine question- what do you hope to acheive by taking legal action? Compensation or a meerkat?

Siren1974

TBeckett100 wrote: »

by taking down names and confirming that once in stock we would be called and paymnt taken, it was an intention to create a legal contract. harrods publicly stated they would be for sale on a reservation basis. we were on the list.
harrods had stock but gave it away, again, for the £25 it costs to test the claim, it is worth a shot if negotiation fails and like the other issues i had in the past, people will soon file claims if one wins and i suspect this would be high profile.

It may be high profile but would you want people to see you threatening legal action over Harrod's decision to donate the meerkats to children's charities? Ignoring the principals, do you have any idea how it makes you look? I'm all for championing the consumer's cause but think you've got it wrong this time