Argos nintendo dsi in black £79.99!

Ironside

Cheshire_Carper wrote: »

An ex-Barrister does not need this explaining to him.

BTW

I'm not an EX Barrister

I am a barrister, once called to the Bar it is for life

Cheshire_Carper

Ironside wrote: »

I can see what type of person you are from this post, so I shall retire from this thread.

Why don't you organise a "collective action" to help those on this thread as it's so rudimentary for you - I pity those poor idiots who make up the legal team for Argos

You misread my comment. I mean no rudeness from my post. It may be a reflection of my 'to the point approach' but as you practised, I found it strange for you to be asking such questions.

It is rudimentary, and if I get real time I will pen a letter (I have nothing personal to gain btw) but I do like to look on here and HUKD and this issue was another of the sort I have seen a few times where the vendor takes advantage of the consumers ignorance. Its bad form from the vendor.

rosatoso_2

Ironside wrote: »

I don't want to be drawn into a prolonged legal argument here.

We have been told on this thread that this is first year LLB stuff and it is all cut and dry.

Let's say that I am selling you a Dsi Lite on ebay for £79.99.

You pay for it and I send you a confirmation email.

I despatch the item by courier. But then I realise that I am not going to make a profit on it. I send you an email saying that it was a mistake and should have been £149.99 so I am refunding your money. I recall the item from the courier.

What is the legal position on this?

Unless there has been some recent authority, I believe the position is unclear in English Jurisdiction. There is a Scottish case which is often referred to (no doubt someone can cite it for us ) which seems to suggest that such a recall of acceptance is legitimate. But other jurisdications disagree.

We must also remember that (without wishing to get political here) thanks to our wish for a United States Of Europe - any EU Law rules supreme over our own laws where there is a conflict of laws.

Thank you Ironside, that also gives me something to look into. I believe that if you do buy something through Ebay you are obliged to pay, unless you mutually agree not to. Is it because a contract is created?

Cheshire_Carper

Ironside wrote: »

BTW

I'm not an EX Barrister

I am a barrister, once called to the Bar it is for life

Agreed I meant in the kindest (and most practical sense).

rosatoso_2

Please guys, we really appreciate all of your help.

Cheshire_Carper

rosatoso wrote: »

So does it make a difference actually phoning and ordering with Argos Direct because you make them the offer directly, they accept directly and give you an order number as confirmation of a contract directly. Would that differ if there was no human contact for example ordering on a website or Ebay?

Yes, you see each hurdle to clear (when arguing, should an issue go that far, not for a 79 item!) will rely upon a case that agreed with or disagreed with the point you are relying upon).

Example, in the acceptance phase, the fact the vendor accepted the agreement over the phone and gave you an order number and delivery date shows a level of intervention that will be, in fact, similar to a previous case. You would rely upon the facts of a previous (similar) case to bolster your argument. A different set of rules will apply to an electronic sale where there is a lot more scope for positional change by both parties.

silly_sausage_4

ditto what rosatoso said above

rosatoso_2

Would it also make a difference that others who also ordered over the phone, presumably through exactly the same process, had their items delivered - or not? Do you just concentrate on your own scenario?

FloFlo

rosatoso wrote: »

FloFlo it starts AD, it is the number you used to track it on-line.

Yep have that.

:o)

I don't really understand why there is so much reference to things being mispriced. For the people that have ordered the DSi here - its no longer of any relevance whether it was mispriced or not.

A misprice is not a get-out clause for a contract. A misprice is what a retailer uses as an EXCUSE to explain why they did NOT ACCEPT your order for a £79.99 DSi in the first instance!

Its not for them to say, yeah we have ACCEPTED your order for £79.99 DSi, given you an order number and happily taken your money for this contract but now we will not be performing our part of the contract, we will not be delivering you a DSi now, its a misprice.

Best of luck to the people pursuing this, not quite sure why there is so much negativity for consumer trying to enforce their rights. We shouldn't get walked all over by large companies nor should we be put off by a little bit of a confrontation. :beer: