To sue, or not to sue . . . that is the question

williham

Hmm there terms and conditions are a little unclear, I don't know how swoopo works but you might have a case under their terms and conditions of when a contract is formed.

singlerider

WOOHOO!

People on *my* side, now that's what I'm talkin' bout.

Massively outnumbered mind, but so far I don't think anybody has comprehensively refuted my claims - plenty of people telling me I'm talking out my ring, but nobody really producing the actual section or law laying it down as fact.

I figure if I can argue a case against you guys without it getting torn apart, then I might stand a chance of arguing it against them.

So, can somebody please prove to me that I definitely don't have a contract in place, using evidence that contradicts what I've already posted up?

Otherwise I'm gonna get my hopes up

Thanks once again

kiddy_guy

Hold up everyone.

Perhaps the OP should look at the B&Q threads where MSE-ers successfully pursued B&Q for the money. Sightly different case because B&Q tried the defence that they were using their discretion and by not having stock, MSE-ers - TS Beckett in particular - claimed they no longer had discrection - and won.

To my understanding, if they take payment, a contract is formed, and accepted.

There may be more to this than a lot of people are saying. Clearly if no money is taken, they can simply claim they are no longer willing to conclude the deal. Similar to gazumping with houses, but when money is taken - whole different ball game.

singlerider

Ooh, a new development, I'm liking the sound of this.

Basically, they took my money - or rather it came out of paypal, which they've now refunded (against my will I might add) - so it was my understanding that with the acceptance of offer and exchange of money, the contract is formed.

I'll look out for these B&Q threads you speak of

dacouch

williham wrote: »

Hmm there terms and conditions are a little unclear, I don't know how swoopo works but you might have a case under their terms and conditions of when a contract is formed.

Williham if you have never seen Swoopo in action I thoroughly recommend you have a look at it. If you think the lottery is a poor tax you have not seen anything until you have witnessed Swoopo!

Do not try bidding as you will lose a lot of money, read up on it and then spend a few minutes watching the bidding reset itself each time someone places a bid which costs them circa 50p to bid 1p. Work out how many bids have been placed to get to that price and then have a look again tommorow and they will still be bidding on the same item/ items.

You even get people biidding to buy 100 bids

It is pure evil and parts a lot of stupid people from their money

marywooyeah

Anihilator wrote: »

I agree with them.

You arent entitled to it at that price and no court would enforce the contract due to the fact its blatantly an error for everyone to see.

are you aware of the legal term "Consideration must be adequate but need not be sufficient?"
all essential elements of a contract have been fufilled here: Offer, Acceptance, Agreement, Consideration and Intention to Create Legal Relations is presumed as it is a sale in the course of business.

OP You do have a case, the court will enforce a bad bargain as long as all contractual elements are present. What country is the website in? this may have an impact on your eligibility to apply the principles established in UK law

singlerider

Swoopo is I believe originally German, but the website is a .co.uk and it has its base in London - Entertainment Shopping AG.

So I think it can all be conducted on a purely UK basis

marywooyeah

Vomityspice wrote: »

There are a number of flaws to your thinking. I'll attempt to explain why you are wrong...

1) Offer / Acceptance issue. You fail to understand that any party can withdraw an offer at anytime before a contract is made (Grant v Routledge). As the goods were never dispatched to you, there is no binding contract and therefore you don't have a cause of action.

2) I'm certain if you look in their T&C's it will have a clause on Errors or Omissions. Read it.

So to answer your question - don't waste your money, you will lose and be out of pocket as well as looking silly. If you want to learn more about the exciting world of contracts can I recommend 'Contract Law' by Ewen McKendrick.

theres a lot of people on here throwing around incorrect legal advice. Yes Vomityspice you are correct that an offer can be withdrawn before acceptance, but they didn't withdraw the offer before acceptance.
By bidding and winning and paying the OP has made an offer which has been accepted and consideration has moved from the promisee. the OP has fufilled their obligations, all that is outstanding is for the company to provide the product.

singlerider

kiddy_guy wrote: »

Perhaps the OP should look at the B&Q threads where MSE-ers successfully pursued B&Q for the money.

Sorry to be a pain, but any chance of a link?

Ta

neilmcl

I still maintain that as the buy it now price that the OP paid was clearly and obviously an error, which the OP sought to take advantage, any contract that may or may not have been in force would be void. I believe that it is this that a court will look at and decide in favour of the retailer.