Online misprice, where do I stand

BFG_2

bitemebankers wrote: »

Please, nobody try this (not that any of you would).

Biteme...this was about suing for the 'difference in price'

Would you like to change your mind???

neilmcl

BFG wrote: »

You understand it incorrectly then.

I don't think so. Tell me where my argument breaks down then.

BFG_2

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't think so. Tell me where my argument breaks down then.

I'll have a go....

The seller put item up at a price [offer].

Buyer bought at advertised/offer price [acceptance].

Seller took money = contract formed [let's ignore the t&cs/DSR to keep it simple]

No unilateral mistake [thinking 'Oh that's cheap I'll buy it' doesn't void a contract]. Ever seen the price of perishable stuff in Tesco at 11.30pm........silly, but still valid. Similarly stores have stuff at silly prices as loss leaders and to generate 'bargain fever'. It's not for the consumer to consider if the price is 'right' or 'too low to be correct'....they buy at the offered price, job done. [Unless you know different??]

Someone more 'legal' than me will doubtless explain it much better.

HTH

neilmcl

But that's not what's happened, if we go by what the OP has written.

For some reason, probably technical, an item was put up for sale at the wrong price, unknown to the retailer. The buyer, seeing the price was obviously incorrect - he admits as much, took advantage of the seller's mistake and jumped in to buy the item at the incorrect price. If the unilateral mistake argument applies then the contract is void.

BFG_2

neilmcl wrote: »

If the unilateral mistake argument applies then the contract is void.

In a spirit of conciliation, you are correct in making the statement quoted above. However the key word is 'IF'........my belief is that [as [iirc] tozer has already said] the unilateral mistake WON'T apply or stand up in court.....so contract isn't void, and we then can go from there onwards to 'loss of bargain'.

4743hudsonj

BFG wrote: »

I'll have a go....

The seller put item up at a price [offer].

Buyer bought at advertised/offer price [acceptance].

Seller took money = contract formed [let's ignore the t&cs/DSR to keep it simple]

No unilateral mistake [thinking 'Oh that's cheap I'll buy it' doesn't void a contract]. Ever seen the price of perishable stuff in Tesco at 11.30pm........silly, but still valid. Similarly stores have stuff at silly prices as loss leaders and to generate 'bargain fever'. It's not for the consumer to consider if the price is 'right' or 'too low to be correct'....they buy at the offered price, job done. [Unless you know different??]

Someone more 'legal' than me will doubtless explain it much better.

HTH

reminds me of the Kodak case in 2001.

very similar terms accept some customers knew it was an error others not.

Kodak backed down, weather this was because they thought they may lose, or they thought the stand to much bad PR that its better to cut their losses is unclear and never divulged.
http://www.weblaw.co.uk/articles/how-to-contract-online/

That makes some good reading and may(emphasis on the word may:rolleyes:) prove your interpretation wrong, if their website details what they deem to be acceptance.

I've not read them so i dont know but you lot can have a look and resume the arguments

All irrelevant now mind you, seeing as your on loss of a bargain already, i started writing hours ago and stopped half way through without re-reading

bitemebankers

Seller took money = contract formed [let's ignore the t&cs/DSR to keep it simple]

Err, no, let's not ignore DSR - it's crucial in this case. The regulations state that a transaction does not complete until the buyer has received and accepted* the goods. And under contract law, until the sale is complete, either party can back out. This is generally a good thing, because it provides important protection to both the buyer and the seller. It protects the vendor against eventualities when, for whatever reason, they're unable to fulfil the order. It also protects the buyer in that they have the guarantee of a full refund, including original P&P, if they're not happy in any way with their purchase.


In this situation, the law is quite unambiguous.What has happened to the OP is frustrating - but not illegal. He's not been treated very well, in my opinion, but poor customer service is not illegal.

* This means that the buyer has had opportunity to "examine the goods". This means you can inspect visually in the same way you would in a shop. It doesn't mean you can try it on, unpack/assemble etc. There's also an important caveat regarding made-to-order goods - anything you buy that's prepared specifically for you is not covered under DSR. However, other statutory rights DO apply, so it's not necessarily a reason to avoid buying online or by mail/telephone order.

diamond57

neilmcl wrote: »

But that's not what's happened, if we go by what the OP has written.

For some reason, probably technical, an item was put up for sale at the wrong price, unknown to the retailer. The buyer, seeing the price was obviously incorrect - he admits as much, took advantage of the seller's mistake and jumped in to buy the item at the incorrect price. If the unilateral mistake argument applies then the contract is void.

I was not actually looking for a misprice, but was trying to check out the prices on line of mattresses matching the spec of one that I had seen in store that day as we need to urgently replace ours. This is why if they cannot take the money again I can safely spend it again and buy elsewhere, as ideally we wanted one delivered this week. A double mattress is not something you would normally buy even if cheap due to the space they take up so I was not taking "advantage of the seller's mistake".

I would be grateful if some-one can confirm if they can tae the money again from my credit card, as of course they have the details and I did place the order. Thanks

neilmcl

I never said you were looking for a misprice but yet you came across one as you freely admitted in your post - "the price appeared wrong". So you knew the price was incorrect and decided to jump in and order it anyway. That's classed as taking advantage of the sellers mistake.

BFG_2

bitemebankers wrote: »

Err, no, let's not ignore DSR - it's crucial in this case.

Please, please, please re-read my post to which you refer [and the ones before]. I'll try and explain.

In this post and the lead up we were actually discussing one solitary aspect of it all...namely 'unilateral cancellation of a valid contract due to mistake'.

We were not discussing if the contract was valid or not, we were trying to discuss whether or not there was a possibility of the seller unilaterally cancelling a valid contract due to a mistake.

I fully accept that t&cs, DSR etc are important - but NOT in the context of my posting.

If there is no valid contract then the question of mistake or unilateral cancellation or anything else doesn't enter the equation - I KNOW THAT!!!

Now can you see why I said "Seller took money = contract formed [let's ignore the t&cs/DSR to keep it simple]"???? - it was to allow discussion of mistake/unilateral cancellation.

HTH