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

mark_dumpleton

My point exactly - I see there are a few of us on here that are trying to help others out by stopping them from wasting their hard-earned £60 - this is a moneysaving website, not a "let's all try and scam a company out of a £1200 TV by pleading ignorance".
The law is in place to stop such things (people pleading ignorance), and so the court will ignore what you say and take the industry standard (or RRP) price to be the benchmark for seeing if such a pricing error has been made.

mark_dumpleton

TBeckett100 wrote: »

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

Tom - listen to us here.
A contract can already be formed when a unilateral mistake is found, and the contract can then be declared void.

It doesn't matter if payment was taken, or if a contract had been formed - if a unilateral mistake is found to be in existence then a contract can be cancelled and money returned.

Listen to those of us who are having to repeat the same old things, PLEASE.

anewman

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

and so the court will ignore what you say and take the industry standard (or RRP) price to be the benchmark for seeing if such a pricing error has been made.

Many a time I have purchased items with well over 85% off the original price, without any Bull $h17 DFS sale style tricks going on. Most recent example Torchwood Archives Hardback book, 49p in Home Bargains RRP £14.99. A saving of over 95%. Cheapest the same book is available elsewhere online is £9.08 at Amazon, still a saving of nearly 95%. The book is still available at full price elsewhere.

Your argument just does not wash at all or compare whatsoever with my experiences of RRP versus purchase price for some items, and the experiences of many others. Savings of 85% and over (without any DFS sale crap) are easily possible. Pixmania expect us to believe that 85% discount is Vile, but that in their "amazing sales" you can expect to get a genuine 70% off.

PockettMoney

anewman wrote: »

Pixmania expect us to believe that 85% discount is Vile, but that in their "amazing sales" you can expect to get a genuine 70% off.

A genuine 70% off only the one listed item, an MP3 player that was released about 7 months ago, and is also available for the same sale price on other online websites, as opposed to 85% off a TV that was released this month!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

PockettMoney wrote: »

A genuine 70% off only the one listed item, an MP3 player that was released about 7 months ago, and is also available for the same sale price on other online websites, as opposed to 85% off a TV that was released this month!

I didn't know that when ordering & I do not really see its relevance.

No offense.

pretzelnut

Well my letter is on its way.

TaZmAn

Judging by some of these posts, it seems DSG and Pixmania have infiltrated this forum... Oh well, it was to be expected I guess.

I would advise everyone here to be fully aware that people representing the interests of DSG and Pixmania will no doubt be posting in this thread. It is inevitable that they will try everything to put you all off from pursuing this case further. Please be aware of this and make your own minds up on what you want to do. Everyone should just do whatever they feel comfortable doing and should use their own brains and judgement.

I personally have no problem taking them to court, as I feel strongly that Pixmania are breaking the law and believe they are completely in the wrong. Of course there is a small risk involved in taking them to court, but without risk, you couldn't take anything through the courts so that goes with the territory. If anyone feels the same and believe the law is on their side, then you need to believe in yourselves and take the matter further - not taking them to court, is effectively the same as giving up without even trying to be honest. If however you don't want to take any risks, don't feel confident or couldn't handle losing £60 if you lost, then of course don't take them to court.

Anyone who says that Pixmania are legally in the right though, are talking utter rubbish as far as I'm concerned. Also the case from 1871 that Mark Dumpleton used for Pixmania's defence is quite frankly laughable - if Pixmania plan on using that as their defence, then god help them.

I'm starting to think we should get the BBC and Watchdog involved in this, especially given that so many people are affected. I could really imagine BBC Watchdog wanting to get it's teeth into this... I honestly think DSG and Pixmania would be better off having an immediate rethink and agreeing to honour these sales right now, rather than not only getting dragged through the courts by countless people but also getting publically humiliated on Watchdog. Being dragged through the courts would not only cost them a fortune in both time and money, but could end up costing them a hell of a lot more if they were to lose - They certainly shouldn't feel confident of winning any such case!! Also, the negative publicity on watchdog would cost both DSG and Pixmania a massive amount in future lost sales. If they have any intelligence whatsoever, they should seriously have a rethink and honour these sales.

For those people saying Pixmania is a french company and UK laws don't apply - I'm sure Watchdog would love to talk about this and inform the rest of the British public if this is the case. I can't see anyone in the UK buying anything from Pixmania ever again if they can trade freely in the UK, using Pixmania.co.uk, under ownership of DSG - a UK organisation and somehow escape UK laws as and when it suits them... Also to those people claiming DSG is independent of Pixmania and we shouldn't be writing to DSG... I'm sure Watchdog would like to talk about that too. The negative publicity to DSG would be phenomenal quite frankly if this story ran on the BBC and would have a knock on effect on the rest of their businesses including Dixons, Currys etc. Don't underestimate what effect that kind of negative publicity has on future sales and people's confidence in using these companies in future. Being mentioned on Watchdog would probably be far worse for them financially than being dragged through the courts to be honest.

manna777

................ Watchdog!!! that old cherry:rotfl:

mark_dumpleton

Last chance at trying to get through to somebody.

Regardless of whether you know how much it is supposed to cost, a judge will look at how much a consumer should normally expect to pay for this TV. They'll see that a reduction of £1000 only a month after it has been released is not standard pricing for a company.

A judge will not rule in favour of the claimant as this is classed as a unilateral mistake on the part of Pixmania. It may not be morally right, but it is most certainly legally correct.

All i'm trying to do here is save some people the bother and cost that will most probably be wasted by going down this path, but I seem to be encountering two or three people that are very stubborn and cannot see the sense behind a unilateral mistake.

Tazman - if the case gets to court, then Pixmania will not even need to provide examples such as the 1871 one. A unilateral mistake is one of the most common mistakes in English (and French too i'd guess) law and so the rules are very clear-cut regarding it. A court will know all about unilateral mistakes and exactly how to deal with them, and 99% of the time it will end in the contract being declared void.

Why would Watchdog ever, ever run a piece on this? I will take my words back if proven wrong and they do get interested, but this is simply a pricing error. Regardless of whether money was taken or a contract was made, they made a pricing error and are fully within the law to rescind the contract.

I don't understand why some people are getting so uppy about this - you've got (or will get) your money back, and the only reason you're pursuing this further is because you know damn well that you're trying to cheat a cheap TV out of a company - you all know very well it was a misprice, so what you're doing is extremely dishonest and even illegal if you lie in court and say you didn't know it was mispriced.

And, just in case you think I work for DSGi or Pixmania - i'm a student at university with absolutely no ties to the company.
I give up trying to help though, if you can only see this through blinkered eyes then best of luck to you. Just trying to help, but it seems even that isn't good enough on here.

Enfieldian

Have any of these people so desperate for a TV bought another one elsewhere?

Or is £499 for a 42 inch LCD too much for them?