Will pre-paid mispriced hotel room be honoured?

JamieT1977

Not wanting to argue but check with TS and BERR/OFT. Either way we are going off course of the purpose of this thread lol

dmg24

JamieT1977 wrote: »

Not wanting to argue but check with TS and BERR/OFT. Either way we are going off course of the purpose of this thread lol

I have a Law degree. There is no need for me to check my facts! As stated, the SI's you note do not confer rights on individuals to enforce a one off pricing error.

starrystarry

You took the thread off course when you mentioned price labels in shops. You can't expect us not to point out your error just because it's not what the OP was asking about originally.

DMG and I have been quite specific in our replies. I've quoted two relevant (and famous) cases and added a link to a BBC item on the topic. Where is the information to back up your argument?

starrystarry

dmg24 wrote: »

I have a Law degree. There is no need for me to check my facts!

Think I'll bow out now then and let an expert take over. Thanks DMG. Phew.

dmg24

Here you go, can't get more simple than this.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/savvy/ncw_newsroom/press_release/ncw/ncw_pr/571585

Question 6: b
It's a common myth that goods with a wrong price tag must be sold at that price. In legal terms, prices displayed in a shop are not considered as legally binding offers but as 'invitations to treat'. However, you may want to report the matter to Trading Standards.

SAVVY'S TOP TIP: Shop around for the best prices but remember a deal isn't a deal till you've paid at the till!

With regards to the deal not being a deal until you have paid, this is where mistake, E&OE clauses come into play, and potentially allow the retailer to rescind the contract.

I am sure that you are aware that Consumer Direct is run by the OFT.

JamieT1977

dmg24 wrote: »

I have a Law degree. There is no need for me to check my facts! As stated, the SI's you note do not confer rights on individuals to enforce a one off pricing error.

All cases (from 1953 and 1961) you have used plus the BBC News strory (fom 1999) are all pre the amendments from 2003,2004 and 2008. My point is valid.

dmg24

JamieT1977 wrote: »

All cases (from 1953 and 1961) you have used plus the BBC News strory (fom 1999) are all pre the amendments from 2003,2004 and 2008. My point is valid.

Can you point out the particular amendments?

As starrystarry has said, you have provided no evidence to back up your statements. starrystarry and myself have both provided evidence, including a statement from CD/ the OFT, who you said would back up your statement!

JamieT1977

dmg24 wrote: »

Can you point out the particular amendments?

As starrystarry has said, you have provided no evidence to back up your statements. starrystarry and myself have both provided evidence, including a statement from CD/ the OFT, who you said would back up your statement!

Will gladly seek them out for you, I will just have to pop to HQ to get them.

dmg24

JamieT1977 wrote: »

Will gladly seek them out for you, I will just have to pop to HQ to get them.

They are all available on the internet! Or you could just quote the relevant citations and I'll search out the text?

sittinpretty

starrystarry wrote: »

That's not correct Jamie. The label, or any part of the display, is an "invitation to treat" and as such is not binding. The inviter can change their mind when you get to the till.

Most stores would honour it, but there's no legal obligation to.

Once they've taken your money and confirmed the purchase/booking is it binding?