Incorrect price by John Lewis.com

makda7

Hi,

I ordered a Bloom fresco high chair which was priced at £100. The item was about £150 cheaper than the actual price of £250. The payment got taken from my account and i recieved confirmation and the item was dispatched accordingly.
However they have sent me an incorrect item. They contacted me saying sorry for the inconvenience and that if i would like to keep that item then they would reduce it by £20. However i have said i want the actual item i ordered.
They initially told me over the phone that it was out of stock and then said that the item was incorrectly priced and that the best they can do is give me £25 off the high chair as a goodwill gesture or i can keep the incorrect item or get a refund of £100.
Although their T&C state that the contract is complete when the goods are dispatched. Can anyone help me as to whether they are in breach and whether it would be possible for them to send me the correct item for £100 even though it was incorrectly priced.
Thanks

Ahmed

sheerdelight

They are under no obligation to send you the item that is/was incorrectly priced at £100. Also return item that was sent and get a refund for £100.

KeithP

Totally agree with Sheerdelight.

hesjane

I totally disagree with both Sheerdelight and KeithP.

Provided the advert and email confirmation described the item you purchased correctly - then once they have taken your money and dispatched the goods then the contract is formed. The fact they delivered incorrect goods is their problem to sort out.

Google the term 'loss of bargain' for more information.

John Lewis are in breach of contract and you can claim loss of bargain. Look the term up or pm TBeckett100Tom is [STRIKE]acknowledged as an expert on[/STRIKE] very experienced in the area of loss of bargain and if you pm him with the exact details he will advise you.

dmg24

hesjane wrote: »

John Lewis are in breach of contract and you can claim loss of bargain. Look the term up or pm TBeckett100Tom is acknowledged as an expert on loss of bargain and if you pm him with the exact details he will advise you.

TBeckett100 is an expert on nothing. He has absolutely no legal qualifications. This is the man who wanted to sue Harrods for giving teddies to sick children rather than him!

OP, if you escalate your complaint to JL head office they are likely to honour your order, or meet you somewhere in the middle.

hesjane

dmg24 wrote: »

TBeckett100 is an expert on nothing. He has absolutely no legal qualifications. This is the man who wanted to sue Harrods for giving teddies to sick children rather than him!

OP, if you escalate your complaint to JL head office they are likely to honour your order, or meet you somewhere in the middle.

Hi dmg

I've changed my wording - fair enough Tom is not an expert in the sense you refer to.

However, he has had success and supported many people with loss of bargain claims, notably B&Q dishwashers and undergound water storage tanks (neither of which I purchased or chased...but followed the threads with interest).

The thing is the OP asked whether JL were in breach and whether he could expect them to send the original item ordered for £100 as advertised. My answer was that yes JL are in breach and yes he could expect that. I just also pointed out someone on the forum who has experience of this area.

I totally agree the OP should, in the first instance escalate his complaint to JL head office - but as for meet in the middle, why should they? JL are clearing wrong in this instance - the OP purchased the item in good faith and JL took the money, therefore they should supply the goods the OP purchased or enable him/her to purchase them elsewhere. Loss of Bargain is in place to protect consumers so why shouldn't they use it if retailers fail to adhere to contracts.

I'm not getting into any arguments over the Harrods meerkats....many people were up in arms over that...I personally didn't order one and was pleased the charities benefitted. Whatever Tom chose to do in that situation was up to him and if I remember correctly he mentioned the possibility that there could be a claim, but he never claimed for loss of bargain or anything else from Harrods in this case.

TBeckett100

Forgive DMG24. How someone can have such hatred for someone who has never harmed them is concerning but if we didn't have people like that Broadmoor would be a lonely place.

hesjane

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Forgive DMG24. How someone can have such hatred for someone who has never harmed them is concerning but if we didn't have people like that Broadmoor would be a lonely place.

Hi Tom:beer:

Thanks for popping in...hopefully you can give, or already are giving advice to the OP.

Life is too short for petty disagreements - I try not to get involved in arguments/disagreements on the forums....everyone has, and is entitled to, an opinion - dmg24 included.

If I disagree with things or threads get fractious I tend to close the thread and not bother returning to it unless I genuinely believe the OP has been misadvised...as I did in this case. I felt the first two responses were clearly wrong so I pointed the OP in the direction of a seasoned MSEr that I know has experience and knowledge (but obviously no expertise;)) in this area.:D

Broadmoor is full enough by the way....I live very close by and don't need any more inmates coming along thank you very much:rotfl:

gordikin

TBeckett100 wrote: »

Forgive DMG24. How someone can have such hatred for someone who has never harmed them is concerning but if we didn't have people like that Broadmoor would be a lonely place.

Eh, what are you talking about? I see no hatred in dmg24's post.

gordikin

As the OP is far from happy that the contract is complete, I'd agree with you!

TBeckett100

jdturk wrote: »

this is an interesting one, when an online company dispatches the item then that is the contract being fulfilled but this time they have sent the wrong item so not completing the contract so I would side with John Lewis on the fact that because they have not dispatched the correct item the contract has not been fulfilled and as such they would not have to honour the price on the website

but there has to be a contract involved. Certainly the OP bought an item from the retailer which it took payment for. The fact it sent the incorrect item would mean in law they have to send the right item. Imagine if we bought a 50 inch TV and they delivered a 21 inch TV. Using your logic, there wouldnt be a contract and the consumer would have to accept a 21 inch TV.

John Lewis are probably the most honourable retailer to deal with. Therefore a firm letter backed with legislation should do the trick.