47" LED Widescreen 1080p HD TV - £199 @ Pixmania price error

mumOf2wonderfulkids

princesswoo wrote: »

To go in my living room, so please tell me how that expresses a desire to ''make a killing''.

my desire to make a killing was to get a hugely expensive tv at an unbelievably stupid price lol do i need a tv? um probably not, mine works finebut i am a typical woman and cannot resist a bargain

anewman

Dubyabeeay wrote: »

This was obviously a mistake. Anyone who thought otherwise is naive. Therefore a gamble was taken about whether or not it would be recieved. Now that the mistake has been realised and orders are being cancelled people are getting irate and threatening legal action and so on.

Well as I understand the law, if money is taken, that forms a legally binding contract to provide goods or services. If they do not want to provide that service no monies should be taken (though reserving it against your balance shouldn't be an issue). The legal term people would be suing under is "loss of bargain".

Obviously a mistake yes, but if they have taken any money (and I have interpreted the law correctly) why should they be exempt from the law? People make mistakes, granted, but if the entire system is designed to flout the law if a mistake is made, then that's their fault not ours.

Taking them to court would in fact help protect the interests of others in future, i.e. money is not taken from people's cards and pixmania doesn't benefit from the interest.

INT1

Just because the order went through, they haven't officially had their money.
It will simply be a pre authorisation sitting on your credit cards/bank authorisation system.

Until the transactions posts on to your statement, then they have had the money.

BTW-As I work in the field of financial services and can see this info, there are a lot of greedy people out there putting through not just one order but 3/4 at a time...

newsgroup_monkey

anewman wrote: »

Well as I understand the law, if money is taken, that forms a legally binding contract to provide goods or services. If they do not want to provide that service no monies should be taken (though reserving it against your balance shouldn't be an issue). The legal term people would be suing under is "loss of bargain".

Obviously a mistake yes, but if they have taken any money (and I have interpreted the law correctly) why should they be exempt from the law? People make mistakes, granted, but if the entire system is designed to flout the law if a mistake is made, then that's their fault not ours.

Taking them to court would in fact help protect the interests of others in future, i.e. money is not taken from people's cards and pixmania doesn't benefit from the interest.

As I've posted up on HUKD, if they sell their entire stock of 250 @ £199, then they are within the law.

You can't sell what you don't have. I don't believe there is a legal responsibility to have a real-time stock system.

gtwill040

aldo wrote: »

Just because the order went through, they haven't officially had their money.
It will simply be a pre authorisation sitting on your credit cards/bank authorisation system.

Until the transactions posts on to your statement, then they have had the money.

BTW-As I work in the field of financial services and can see this info, there are a lot of greedy people out there putting through not just one order but 3/4 at a time...

But your forgetting those who paid by paypal. Instant transfer of funds is instant, therefore they have the funds.

What's your thought's on this?

mumOf2wonderfulkids

gtwill040 wrote: »

But your forgetting those who paid by people. Instant transfer of funds is instant, therefore they have the funds.

What's your piece on this?

wow you mean they accept payment by people??

wish i had known that - they could have had the kids :D

eklynne

gtwill040 wrote: »

But your forgetting those who paid by people

If I'd known they took humans as payment they could have had my DD

gtwill040

ha ha :embarasse

jamsponge

CANCELLED oh well was worth a try. I was going to give it to my parents for a 40th wedding aniversary Well back to trawling the net for another prezzie.

INT1

gtwill040 wrote: »

But your forgetting those who paid by paypal. Instant transfer of funds is instant, therefore they have the funds.

What's your thought's on this?

It's through a 3rd party payment provider, who can issue a refund within 60 days with no charges incurred.