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

mark_dumpleton

The point i'm trying to get across is that you will not be successful with a claim.

Also take a look at Smith v Hughes, which is very similar to Hartog v Colin & Shields whereby a price was charged which would not seem in line with industry norms, leading to a court rescinding the contract. These are two of the largest and most commonly used cases when discussing unilateral mistakes in contract law.

Where the courts make a finding of mistake this will generally render the contract void ab initio (from the beginning) so it is as if the contract never existed.

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

The point i'm trying to get across is that you will not be successful with a claim.

Also take a look at Smith v Hughes, which is very similar to Hartog v Colin & Shields whereby a price was charged which would not seem in line with industry norms, leading to a court rescinding the contract. These are two of the largest and most commonly used cases when discussing unilateral mistakes in contract law.

well I am sure someone will run a test case on it.

mark_dumpleton

TBeckett100 - you really need to understand this point I am about to make:

It is not required for the defendant to prove the claimant would have known about the mistake

In contract law, in the case of mistake, all that is required is for the price to be sufficiently different to the industry norm so that any learned consumer would be aware that a mistake had been made

Regardless of whether there was a sale, the consumer electronics industry will never, ever reduce a 42" LED TV to £199 (a discount of 83%, as it is new technology and still expensive). The industry norm is around £1000, and so it would be obvious to any buyer (who the courts will assume will have a sufficient knowledge as to the standard price to expect) that a mistake has been made.

This is what the court will look at, they will not listen to "I didn't know guv, 'onest!"


I do repeat though, in all sincerity, best of luck if you do pursue a claim but I hope I can show some people on here the path the courts will most likely take. If somebody does claim and is successful then I will take what I have said back and congratulate you, but I can be all-but-certain people will not be successful.

Lynsey

mark_dumpleton, why were the B&Q cases settled??
The question has to be asked, "Would it be worth DSG's interest to fight each individual case"??
Yes, they will have a group law firm to deal with it, but at what cost??

Lynsey

mark_dumpleton

I guess they would see it fully within their interest to fight each case - especially being as soon as one is ruled the rest should be ruled very quickly.

Yes, they will have a group law firm to deal with it, and probably at much less cost than giving away a £1200 TV for £200 (probably about a £600 loss per consumer they would settle out of court with)

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

I guess they would see it fully within their interest to fight each case - especially being as soon as one is ruled the rest should be ruled very quickly.

Yes, they will have a group law firm to deal with it, and probably at much less cost than giving away a £1200 TV for £200 (probably about a £600 loss per consumer they would settle out of court with)

Legal fees are mammoth.

Lynsey

You may be right Mark, or you maye be wrong - time will tell.
The sensible thing would have been to have the correct T&C's in the first place. They could be described as "negligent".

Lynsey

mark_dumpleton

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Legal fees are mammoth.

Legal fees from a big company are probably charged as a flat rate actually as opposed to a case-by-case basis - economies of scale, etc.

Can I ask a question? Why are you so determined to get people to claim for this? You don't seem to be able to see where i'm coming from with the unilateral mistake clause.

Lynsey wrote: »

You may be right Mark, or you maye be wrong - time will tell.
The sensible thing would have been to have the correct T&C's in the first place. They could be described as "negligent".

Lynsey

I agree Lynsey, a decent set of T&C's would have saved a lot of people a lot of bother! I personally did not purchase one of the TVs as I knew the way it would end up going, but I have been reading this thread and want to be able to try and save people some money as well as lend a helping hand with the law.

TBeckett100

Mark, it doesnt bother me whether people claim. I am annoyed at the way Pixmania have fobbed people off. Something in me wants people to challenge their rights or at least challenge to see if they have rights rather than be bullied by a corporate entity.
1) They changed their T&C's straightafter the event - which sniffs of issues
2) They have emailed people to say because they were selling the item at a loss legally they have to cancel the order (that is a good one for the defence pack)
3) Price is vile???
4) Lots of people still don;t have their money back
5) I believe a contract was formed and broken.

mark_dumpleton

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Mark, it doesnt bother me whether people claim. I am annoyed at the way Pixmania have fobbed people off.
1) They changed their T&C's straightafter the event - which sniffs of issues
2) They have emailed people to say because they were selling the item at a loss legally they have to cancel the order (that is a good one for the defence pack)
3) Price is vile???
4) Lots of people still don;t have their money back
5) I believe a contract was formed and broken.

1) They're fully entitled to change their T&C's, possibly did it to prevent this happening again
2) Yeah, I agree that wasn't worded very well, but isn't a cause to claim
3) Price is vile = unilateral mistake. Basically, same difference. Cause to declare contract void ab initio
4) If this is via PayPal, it's PayPal's fault - they wait until funds are with them before refunding the money so you don't end up with an extra amount of money that's not yours
5) A contract WAS formed. It can then be cancelled via unilateral mistake law.