Seller increases delivery charge after auction ends

bingo_bango

Wig wrote:

Are you not talking about an example in normal retail ( I am talking about ebay)? And you are giving an example of mispricing which is not legally binding on a seller/advertiser where the misprice cannot be said to be a realistic offer, i.e. if it looks like a mistake it is not binding in law. The seller has every right not to honour the sale.

The seller doesn't have to enter into contract, but if they have (accepted payment generally), then the buyer would have a case to claim compensation for loss of bargain. The buyer would however have to show that they were intent on buying a similar item, that they are going to significantly lose out as a result of the breach of contract by the seller, and that the price displayed was one that could be described as reasonable to a normal person on the street, with regard to other sale prices, discounts normally offered by the trader etc.
The seller can enter a defence of simple mistake, but they must also prove due diligence in ensuring that the item's price was displayed correctly in the first place.
To say that a mistake is not binding in law is incorrect. There is a defence to it, but that does not mean a retailer would win such a case automatically.

Dell recently gave a formal undertaking to the OFT regarding unfair terms in it's consumer contracts. One of these was allowing Dell to withdraw from a contract or change a price if they had incorrectly priced an item.
The OFT found that there were just too many instances of this happening for Dell to claim mistake all the time. The next time they have a misprice, I'll be pushing for them to honour it, and if refused due to t's & c's, I'll be making a formal complaint through Trading Standards to OFT about it. Might not work, but worth a crack.

Wig

bingo_bango wrote:

To say that a mistake is not binding in law is incorrect. .

I didn't say that, I said and you highlighted it " i.e. if it looks like a mistake it is not binding in law" and you repeated what I said in your words when you wrote:
"was one that could be described as reasonable to a normal person on the street,"

If it looks like a mistake, i.e. if it is one that could NOT be described as reasonable, it is not binding.