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

iwantthatone

princesswoo wrote: »

I am one of those who thought it was an genuine bargain, i have no idea how much all these different TV's are supposed to cost, i just bought it and asked Df about it when he came in later.

I thought that with all the banners and 85% off, and the countdown timer that it was genuine.

I quickly bought one thinking they might only have a handful to sell, so i bought one quick.

Like PocketTMoney has pointed out, you have shown yourself to be an extremely dishonest person.

princesswoo wrote: »

Ive just given it a whirl.

Dont forget quidco.

Honour it - er probably not but if you dont try you dont get.

princesswoo wrote: »

Let me know what you find out - a tv is a tv to me. Can you tell im female.

DF is already creating a sppace for it, he's gona be so disapointed when it doesnt arrive, sweet revenge for my birthday presents that never materialize, mwahhahahah:D

princesswoo wrote: »

Have you ordered all 3 in 1 order.

Silly if you have as that just raises a big red flag and more chance of them all being cancelled.

mark_dumpleton

PockettMoney wrote: »

If it comes down to it though, and a genuine misprice DOES actually invalidate a contract, are people actually going to proceed and claim they thought all along it was perfectly reasonable to buy a new range TV for £200?

As i've mentioned before on this thread, a unilateral mistake provides cause for the cancellation of a contract.
I really don't want everyone here thinking they can spend £60 on a claim and then have Pixmania provide them with the TV, it just doesn't work that way.
A unilateral mistake has occurred, and this states that when a mistake (such as a pricing error) happens and one of the two parties enter into a contract knowingly aware of this mistake, the contract can be cancelled. A court would expect any claimant (or purchaser of a product) to have sufficient knowledge as to the standard market price of the product, and by therefore purchasing a £1200 TV for £200 it would be assumed that the claimant had sufficient awareness that a mistake had been made.

Please, please consider this before you all waste £60 - this site is supposed to be about moneysaving, not:
a) wasting money; and
b) defrauding a company - you all know it was a misprice!

PockettMoney

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

I really don't want everyone here thinking they can spend £60 on a claim and then have Pixmania provide them with the TV, it just doesn't work that way.

Thanks for the reply. That was all I was interested in.

Yes, I'm perfectly sure some people who know absolutely nothing about the price of electronic goods decided to part with £200 of their money because this looked like a good offer. As this thread and the HUKD thread demonstrates though, a lot of people also went into the offer knowing perfectly well it was a glitch/misprice. I knew it was a misprice when I ordered before wading through the pages and pages of messages!

I don't particularly have any problem with people wishing to pursue this if they think they have a genuine claim, and I think the LOB website provides decent information for those that are going to take things further. I just think that to not even address the fact people thought it was a misprice, and to provide so much information showing how people should genuinely think this was a bargain deal, is a little bit underhand.

Lynsey

Just to wish all who go down the small claims route all the best of luck with your claim. I've thought about this over the weekend and have decided to leave this one out as there are two or three things I'm bothered about. I'll keep them to myself as I wouldn't want to influence anyone against a claim.
One big advantage is that lots and lots of small claims all over the country will take up a lot of DSG's time and will obviously cost them even if they win, so there is a possibility they may just want to settle out of court, that's a chance you take.
You need to be pretty strong to go through with this, it will take up your time and at times your head will be filled with doubts and you will ask yourself if it's worth the effort.
If you succeed, it will then be worth the effort.
You are in good hands with Tom leading the way, please trust him and his advice, he does know lots and lots about "loss of bargain", and if it is achievable - he will get you through it.
Obviously please only go through with suing if you can afford any losses, it is a gamble and you need to decide if you want to play.

Good luck and take care.

Lynsey

TBeckett100

The pinnicle is also the screen shot that says the order has been validated by customer service. That is acceptance of your offer to buy the TV at £199. The fact it says customer service kind of sways away from automatic contract forming to customer service validation.....i.e. humanoids.

mark_dumpleton

TBeckett100 wrote: »

The pinnicle is also the screen shot that says the order has been validated by customer service. That is acceptance of your offer to buy the TV at £199. The fact it says customer service kind of sways away from automatic contract forming to customer service validation.....i.e. humanoids.

It doesn't matter if a contract has been formed or not, ie. it does not matter if your order has been accepted or not - it can be cancelled up to the point of dispatch if a mistake is noticed.

In fact, your argument that a contract has been formed only serves to increase the validity of the counter-argument below.

The law is quite clear on this, and I would advise anyone to really consider how likely they are to win before risking £60 on a small claim.

I really urge you to please, please read the following:

In the case of Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) the seller had made a mistake as to the price of goods and it was held that the buyer must have realised the mistake and as it concerned a term of the contract, the contract was held to be void.
Where a contract is void on the grounds of unilateral mistake, the court will refuse specific performance in equity and if necessary, rescind the contract.

If I can even make one person see that this will get nowhere and save them £60 then I will have helped somebody, but for those that are feeling too stubborn to listen then good luck in your court claim!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

I really urge you to please, please read the following:

In the case of Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) the seller had made a mistake as to the price of goods and it was held that the buyer must have realised the mistake and as it concerned a term of the contract, the contract was held to be void.
Where a contract is void on the grounds of unilateral mistake, the court will refuse specific performance in equity and if necessary, rescind the contract.

Read it. Thanks.


Do you have any examples other than this one?

It is not really suitable for a defense.

TBeckett100

e-tailers, get your website terms right

Early in 2002, Kodak refused to honour orders for a digital camera advertised on their retail website at £100, denying that an automated response to customers confirming confirmation of their orders constituted an acceptance of their £100 offer.

Kodak claimed the price was a mistake and should have been £329. Several hundred consumers were believed to be affected and had been threatening legal action against Kodak unless their contracts were honoured. Some began county court actions. After a month long-dispute well-reported in the media, Kodak bowed to pressure, saying the orders would be processed. The Financial Times reported that the fiasco had cost Kodak several million pounds.
Disputes over price mistakes on websites are nothing new and becoming more and more common as more consumers and businesses buy online and become more web-savvy.
Three years ago, the retailer Argos mistakenly offered television sets for £3 rather than £299. Since the Kodak case, the writer is being notified regularly of other price mistake disputes, one was with another famous international retailer; another was featured like the Kodak case on the BBC's 'Working Lunch'. Why Kodak surrendered

Kodak relied on firstly, their standard terms on the site, which were the terms of sale which state that Kodak had the right to change the content of the website at any time including prices; secondly, the defence of mistake in English law which makes a contract void and thirdly, that the display of price-marked goods wherever the display is, is not an offer to sell goods but, is an invitation to a customer to make an offer to buy ( 'an invitation to treat').

Kodak's defence of mistake failed because the average, reasonable consumer may not have realised that a digital camera for £100, with 'special offer' displayed on it during a month famous for retail sales is a mistake! Their term that they can change their terms including prices at any time would probably fall foul of EU and national consumer laws which protect consumers against unreasonable terms: the EU Directive, the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and UK Regulations of 1999. And lastly, as to their argument that there was no binding contract because the display of the price-marked goods was an invitation to treat; the consumer's offer on a website (it's order) is accepted and becomes a binding contract when the seller communicates acceptance clearly, usually by displaying or sending a written confirmation of the order to the consumer by e-mail which happened in some cases in this instance. Kodak's automated response suggested that the orders had been accepted. It not only acknowledged the order but also talked about "this contract".

TBeckett100

The burden of proof will be to a) prove any buyer knew of the mistake and b) prove how a buyer seeing all the discount signs, countdown clock etc would still be buying on the belief of a unilateral mistake. If it had no sale icons, no countdown clock no bells and whistles an argument could be made... but it didnt.

Lynsey

An interesting bit of reading, it certainly helped cheer me up in a previous case when I had doubts.

http://www.venables.co.uk/n0203mistakes.htm

Lynsey