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

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

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.

Point 2 - wasnt worded very well.

You can't say legally you have to do something when such law doesnt exist. That is a minefield of breaches in consumer law

we will have to agree to disagree.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

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

These cases are very different to Pixmanias' position.

mark_dumpleton

I don't see what there is to agree to disagree on ...

The claim you and others are wanting to make is ONLY that a contract had been formed and then broken when they cancelled the order based on a misprice. Ignore all the other stuff, because that's not relevant. Your argument is the one above.

In contract law, a unilateral mistake (or a 'vile price' in French law) is deemed grounds to cancel a contract which has already been formed. At a discount of over £1100 on a product which uses new technology, it is completely obvious to any learned individual that a misprice has occurred, regardless of how much you argue that you "didn't know".

Good luck to all, but that's the law and that's the way it is.

EDIT: 1984returnsforreal - how are the cases different? A bid was provided for a service, and this bid was found to be way below the industry norm. When the mistake was noticed by the company after being taken up by the customer, the contract was rescinded and declared void due to unilateral mistake. Those cases are two of the most famous cases used when providing information about unilateral mistake in contract law.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

1) They're fully entitled to change their T&C's, possibly did it to prevent this happening again

Not without putting the date of the revision on them..

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

EDIT: 1984returnsforreal - how are the cases different? A bid was provided for a service, and this bid was found to be way below the industry norm. When the mistake was noticed by the company after being taken up by the customer, the contract was rescinded and declared void due to unilateral mistake. Those cases are two of the most famous cases used when providing information about unilateral mistake in contract law.

Because, from how I see it, in both cases the argument was based on fundamental failures outside of price & product.

One is based on product measurement & the other product quality i.e. additional contributory factors.

But hey. I am no legal expert.

Apart from the terms of business statement above.

mark_dumpleton

In legal terms of a contract, then price is deemed to be a term (condition) of the contract, as opposed to a warranty.
If a mistake is made to a warranty of the contract, then the courts will not deem the contract void.
If, however, a fundamental term (condition) is subject to a mistake (such as the price, quantity or quality), then the courts will deem the contract void if a unilateral mistake is present.

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

In legal terms of a contract, then price is deemed to be a term (condition) of the contract, as opposed to a warranty.
If a mistake is made to a warranty of the contract, then the courts will not deem the contract void.
If, however, a fundamental term (condition) is subject to a mistake (such as the price, quantity or quality), then the courts will deem the contract void if a unilateral mistake is present.

so how do you validate a mistake and then take the payment?

TBeckett100

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

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.

Anything the defendant wishes to rely on in court has to be proved old fruit.

MyUserNamesTaken

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Point 2 - wasnt worded very well.

You can't say legally you have to do something when such law doesnt exist. That is a minefield of breaches in consumer law

we will have to agree to disagree.

I hope you know French consumer law well, then. As they are a French company they are covered by French Laws, regardless of DSG being a major shareholder. The company itself has a separate legal identity to DSG, thus you have to take it up with Pixmania, not DSG. You're also writing to the wrong address in your letter on your website. Like I said, Pixmania has its own legal identity, as such, you need to write to them in France.

Correct address for Pixmania, for those who wish to pursue them:

183 Rue du Chevaleret - 75013 Paris

By the way, did you get a camera from Kodak? I did. It was different to this case.

MyUserNamesTaken

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Anything the defendant has to rely on in court has to be proved old fruit.

You're wrong, Tom. Civil cases require only preponderant probability. Is it likely the consumer realised the price was a mistake? Considering LED tvs are fairly new technology, it is highly likely that the consumer was aware that this was a pricing error. Thus unilateral mistake comes into play allowing the seller to nullify the contract. If I were Pixmania, I'd also make damn sure to point out to any court that anyone using the template letter on your website, or anything close to it must have been aware of this thread, thus knew the price was a mistake before placing their order.

Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.