Online misprice, where do I stand

bitemebankers

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.

Have you tried calling them to get their take on the situation?

BFG_2

neilmcl wrote: »

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.

He didn't KNOW the price was wrong; he THOUGHT the price might be wrong, or that it looked very low or alternatively he thought Strewth, that's a bargain.

Either way for your point to be valid surely the seller would have to prove [on a civil basis] that the buyer KNEW the price was wrong and not just a loss leader/bargain/clearance price?? Are you really saying that the seller would win on that basis?? I'm no lawyer [obviously] but that seems a long stretch by whatever measure you use.

Has anyone ever won a case on 'mistake' [as tozer asked earlier]??? If not I'd venture that they wouldn't win this one [or anything similar] either.

bitemebankers

BFG wrote: »

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

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself there. Firstly, try explaining your first post on this thread:

BFG wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..........wrong.

somethingcorporate

BFG wrote: »

I'll have a go....

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

Buyer bought at advertised/offer price [acceptance].

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

HTH

BFG, just to clarify that this is not the case. The advert on the website, or product on a shelf, items in an auction etc are all called an 'invitation to treat', a mere inducement to suggest that they are open to offers on said product. The offer actually comes from the buyer 'offering' payment to the seller. The seller can then accept this offer, agreeing to be bound by all terms of the contract, or reject (or even make a counter offer, whereby the seller then becomes the offeror). Obviously this last one is rare in cyberspace but happens all the time in transactions where negotiations can take place.

If you can interested in this stuff then read up a case called carlill vs carbolic smoke ball co, whereby an advert was so specific it was deemed to go beyond a mere invitation to treat and became an offer.

Slightly off-topic but I hope that's useful.

neilmcl

BFG wrote: »

He didn't KNOW the price was wrong; he THOUGHT the price might be wrong, or that it looked very low or alternatively he thought Strewth, that's a bargain..

Either way for your point to be valid surely the seller would have to prove [on a civil basis] that the buyer KNEW the price was wrong and not just a loss leader/bargain/clearance price?? Are you really saying that the seller would win on that basis?? I'm no lawyer [obviously] but that seems a long stretch by whatever measure you use..

All the courts would need to decide is whether the price error could be seen as such by a reasonable person. Now in this case, without knowing the full detail, we'd have to assume that to be the case as the OP freely admits he thought there was a pricing error yet knowingly went ahead with the purchase regardless.

BFG wrote: »

Has anyone ever won a case on 'mistake' [as tozer asked earlier]??? If not I'd venture that they wouldn't win this one [or anything similar] either.

Yes there is plenty of case law regarding mistake in contract. I couldn't tell you how often it's used today but the legal precedent is there nonetheless.

Edit: The most famouse case relating to unilateral mistake in contract is Hartog v Colin & Shields (1939)

neilmcl

I'm not one to rely on Wikipedia for answers but that aside it explains the Hartog v Colin & Shields case quite well and also point out the modern relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v_Colin_&_Shields

Tozer

somethingcorporate wrote: »

BFG, just to clarify that this is not the case. The advert on the website, or product on a shelf, items in an auction etc are all called an 'invitation to treat', a mere inducement to suggest that they are open to offers on said product. The offer actually comes from the buyer 'offering' payment to the seller. The seller can then accept this offer, agreeing to be bound by all terms of the contract, or reject (or even make a counter offer, whereby the seller then becomes the offeror). Obviously this last one is rare in cyberspace but happens all the time in transactions where negotiations can take place.

If you can interested in this stuff then read up a case called carlill vs carbolic smoke ball co, whereby an advert was so specific it was deemed to go beyond a mere invitation to treat and became an offer.

Slightly off-topic but I hope that's useful.

All good stuff but the issue in this case is whether and when the contract was formed rather than whether there was actually an offer capable of acceptance.

Tozer

neilmcl wrote: »

I'm not one to rely on Wikipedia for answers but that aside it explains the Hartog v Colin & Shields case quite well and also point out the modern relevance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v_Colin_&_Shields

Good case however in my view the distinction is that it is the subject matter of the contract which was the mistake.

I remember the tale of a Lockheed Martin lawyer who was negotiating the sale of C130 aircraft and actually omitted a zero in the price clause thus representing a bargain for the purchaser. The contract was held to be perfectly valid despite it being an obvious typo and that all pricing discussions previously had referred to the higher prices.

I think the poor chap's career was brought to an abrupt end.

neilmcl

Tozer wrote: »

Good case however in my view the distinction is that it is the subject matter of the contract which was the mistake.

I remember the tale of a Lockheed Martin lawyer who was negotiating the sale of C130 aircraft and actually omitted a zero in the price clause thus representing a bargain for the purchaser. The contract was held to be perfectly valid despite it being an obvious typo and that all pricing discussions previously had referred to the higher prices.

I think the poor chap's career was brought to an abrupt end.

I understand what you're saying but I can't agree with you. The Hartog v Colin & Shields case is used precisely in these such cases where online retailers have made this type of pricing error and then had to pull out of the contract.

Tozer

neilmcl wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but I can't agree with you. The Hartog v Colin & Shields case is used precisely in these such cases where online retailers have made this type of pricing error and then had to pull out of the contract.

OK feel free to disagree. I should say that I have just tried to look up the case you refer to in Chitty (the contract's bible) and it isn't even referred to.

All I know is that in 14 years as a contracts lawyer, I have never seen the argument used successfully by any business.

Certainty of contracts is regarded as being a pretty fundamental rule.

Getting it wrong is not a get-out for anyone - particularly a B2C sale.