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

kpmatthews

you read about burglars suing home owners because they have hurt themselves while trespassing. just because it's the law, it doesn't make it moral or socially acceptable. as i said before, people need to decide what they value higher- the law and greed, or morals and integrity.

regarding your example, the money hasn't changed hands- it's been ring fenced by the bank. pixmania haven't accepted that payment. perhaps i'm wrong, but in my case it was never paid to pixmania.

helpmysis

kpmatthews wrote: »

you read about burglars suing home owners because they have hurt themselves while trespassing. just because it's the law, it doesn't make it moral or socially acceptable. as i said before, people need to decide what they value higher- the law and greed, or morals and integrity.

regarding your example, the money hasn't changed hands- it's been ring fenced by the bank. pixmania haven't accepted that payment. perhaps i'm wrong, but in my case it was never paid to pixmania.

In my case money was paid as I paid via Paypal. My bank statement clearly shows it was debited and then the following day credited.

mark_dumpleton

"In the case of Common Law and Equity, Equity shall prevail" ... That is the most well-known statement in UK Law, by the King of England in 1616.

Common Law (what you're attempting to do here) is where a judge will offer damages (ie, force them to give you the TV at the set price) whereas an equity hearing will rescind the contract (ie it never existed) due to a misprice - equity is more moral and will take a much more moral stance than Common Law, which relies on past judgements and is much more strict.

Ergo, the argument for a unilateral mistake in pricing will prevail against an argument that a contract has been formed and broken. A unilateral mistake is grounds to break a contract with sufficient good consideration, so it doesn't matter if money has been taken or not.

In the case of common law and equity, equity shall prevail...just remember that statement.

Enfieldian

There are some good deals on TVs with the World Cup coming up!

Princess_Coupon

anewman wrote: »

I don't know if there have been similar successful cases in the past or not.

http://www.bitterwallet.com/bq-%E2%80%93-the-dishwashers-with-no-discretion/13425

headcone

anewman wrote: »

The law is the law. If a company cannot follow the law it is their problem. IMO the law makes complete sense, if I take someone's money, then I have agreed to provide something. If Pixmania are too stupid to implement a system whereby money is only taken after the order is verified (including the price) and stock is available, that's their loss. If you have a problem with the law I suggest you take it up with the British legal system.

It's like if I sold you a car and we shook hands on £800, you pay, except when you come to collect the car I say sorry the price has gone up as similar cars easily sell for £1600. Or worse I say I've sold it to someone else for more and hand you your money back. You'd think I was a bit of a w@nchor and think you've taken my money, tough t!tt!3s, give me the car. Noone would suggest you were throwing your toys out of the pram under those circumstances if you were trying to get what you originally expected when you handed over your money, which is a car for £800. You expect once you have handed the money over that this is an agreed price and that you will get the goods.

Hopefully if someone is brave enough to stump up the court costs and risk losing, we'll have a better idea whether cases under similar circumstances would succeed in the future. I don't know if there have been similar successful cases in the past or not.

The Law is the Law indeed whilst it suits you.

You seem to want all options.



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2476099

anewman

kpmatthews wrote: »

you read about burglars suing home owners because they have hurt themselves while trespassing.

That's quite different circumstances though.

If the law favoured the retailer all the time (who makes serious amounts of money by the way, and probably does only pay £150 for these TV's wholesale), then the customer would always lose out. We'd end up in a situation whereby a retailer thought they would sell an item at a certain price which would make them money, then realise they're in fact getting more orders than expected (hence they could cancel all the orders, and put the price up). We'd end up in anarchy where buying goods is more like going to an auction every single time with always the possibility of being outbid.

In this case the possibility of being sued for loss of bargain was avoidable by implementing an appropriate web system which only allowed stock in the warehouse to be sold, would help prevent errors in prices (for example the need for entered prices to be checked by someone else), and a system which *ONLY* takes money once they are actually prepared to sell, or have despatched the goods. Other e-tailers can manage these things quite easily. If the law is against you if you don't take these cheap simple precautions, then it's to your benefit to take those precautions. You can't really bring "morality" into the mix when it's such an easy problem to avoid, quite a different situation to leaving something in a dangerous condition in your own house when you don't expect trespassers to invite themselves in, as sometimes leaving things around that may be dangerous is unavoidable. When you have a public website inviting people to place orders, you expect them to do so.

mark_dumpleton

You can bring morality and equitable law into it actually.

It's a misprice. Simple. All the people here are trying to do is find a way to con Pixmania out of a TV - you all knew it was a misprice, however much you claim otherwise.

Any judge would see it the same way - they'll be able to suss exactly what you're doing and they'll award nothing. If proved wrong then i'll happily stand back and say that I was wrong, but this is the way I interpret the law.

Lynsey

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

You can bring morality and equitable law into it actually.

It's a misprice. Simple. All the people here are trying to do is find a way to con Pixmania out of a TV - you all knew it was a misprice, however much you claim otherwise.

Any judge would see it the same way - they'll be able to suss exactly what you're doing and they'll award nothing. Mark, that's only an assumption made by yourself and NOT a fact, though could possibly be right.


If proved wrong then i'll happily stand back and say that I was wrong, but this is the way I interpret the law. Exactly, that's how YOU interpret the law.

I've decided not to try this one out because I have doubts and because I made a very large order (for me anyway)..............but it MUST be up to any individual to decide if they want to pursue this and NOT drop it because someone else on a forum either decides they haven't got a chance or because they think they shouldn't.
I can see positives, but also a good few negatives - so not for me, but I wish those who try "All the best".

Lynsey

biglugs

I've decided not to try this one out because I have doubts and because I made a very large order (for me anyway)..............

You mean you ordered more than one of these TVs?