We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Free bluray player with HD tv at tescos
Comments
-
That's the grey area, signs in the store mentioned a free bluray player, so that is the terms of the contract.
No.
The signs in the store are an "invitation to treat", not an "offer of contract".
An offer to enter a contract is only made when the customer presents the items that he/she wishes to purchase.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
whatmichaelsays wrote: »No.
The signs in the store are an "invitation to treat", not an "offer of contract".
An offer to enter a contract is only made when the customer presents the items that he/she wishes to purchase.
You will need to proove that or it will be just your opinion.0 -
I wasn't going to step back into this thread, but seen as your pedanticism is becoming so prominent in this discussion that it's verging on trolling, I thought I would put an end to it.You will need to proove that or it will be just your opinion.
The case that states that shop displays showing items for sale and prices are invitations to treat and not offers as regards a contract is Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, a case which I am sure a number of members on here recognise as it is reasonable well known. The case that extends that principle to this scenario, and hence the case that you're looking for, is Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, in which the High Court held that the general rule in Fisher extends to advertisements as well. Therefore, whether or not you class the offer referred to in this thread as an advertisement or a stated price (it could feasibly be either) makes no difference; either way it is an invitation to treat and not an offer. Therefore it does not automatically become incorporated into the terms of the contract for sale of the television.
Conveniently, this also definitively settles the issue in the thread. Are you happy now?"MIND IF I USE YOUR PHONE? IF WORD GETS OUT THATI'M MISSING FIVE HUNDRED GIRLS WILL KILL THEMSELVES."0 -
Crazy_Jamie wrote: »I wasn't going to step back into this thread, but seen as your pedanticism is becoming so prominent in this discussion that it's verging on trolling, I thought I would put an end to it.
The case that states that shop displays showing items for sale and prices are invitations to treat and not offers as regards a contract is Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, a case which I am sure a number of members on here recognise as it is reasonable well known. The case that extends that principle to this scenario, and hence the case that you're looking for, is Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, in which the High Court held that the general rule in Fisher extends to advertisements as well. Therefore, whether or not you class the offer referred to in this thread as an advertisement or a stated price (it could feasibly be either) makes no difference; either way it is an invitation to treat and not an offer. Therefore it does not automatically become incorporated into the terms of the contract for sale of the television.
Conveniently, this also definitively settles the issue in the thread. Are you happy now?
No I am not happy at all, how can you accuse someone of trolling just because they have a different opinion to you. I am not here to cause arguements I am simply putting across my opinions.
That opinion hasn't changed either, although I have stated that as the TV was ex demo it wouldn't of had the offer anyway.0 -
I am not accusing you of trolling due to your differing opinion; indeed I hadn't expressed an opinion in this thread at all before my last post. The problem is that your method of discussion involves flippantly dismissing the points of others unless they can provide 'proof', whilst at no time substantiating any of your own points with the 'proof' that you demand of others. It is an inconsistent and overly defensive approach that goads people into reacting whilst serving no constructive purpose.No I am not happy at all, how can you accuse someone of trolling just because they have a different opinion to you. I am not here to cause arguements I am simply putting across my opinions.
What was it about the fully substantiated case law that doesn't constitute the 'proof' that you seemingly have such a hunger for? We're not in the realm of opinion anymore; we're in the realm of cold, hard common law precedent, which I thought is where you wanted to be.Zandoni wrote:That opinion hasn't changed either, although I have stated that as the TV was ex demo it wouldn't of had the offer anyway."MIND IF I USE YOUR PHONE? IF WORD GETS OUT THATI'M MISSING FIVE HUNDRED GIRLS WILL KILL THEMSELVES."0 -
Crazy_Jamie wrote: »The problem is that your method of discussion involves flippantly dismissing the points of others unless they can provide 'proof', whilst at no time substantiating any of your own points with the 'proof' that you demand of others. QUOTE]
If you look back over the thread you will see that I didn't start any of the squabbling, I was hitting back at the way people spoke to me.
I feel that I have had the wrong idea that this forum was here to help people stand up for their rights. It actually appears to be here to mock people when they feel that they have had a bad deal.
You can spout case law as much as you like, I still feel that if the OP had bought a new TV Tesco's would have honoured their offer.0 -
I think this is one of the things that upsets people....I still feel that if the OP had bought a new TV Tesco's would have honoured their offer.
You have just told us what you feel.
Earlier you used phrases like "I believe...", and "I would say...".
When challenged, your response is...You will need to proove that or it will be just your opinion.
Others offer proof, i.e. case law.
Your response is then...
Why are you not prepared to accept that perhaps, just maybe, you are wrong?You can spout case law as much as you like...
Not once have you offered any sort of justification for your opinions.
Even when directly asked for it, you totally ignored the request...It might be useful though if you could tell us about the right that does exist in this case.
Oh, with a citation, of course.0 -
If you take advice from Zandoni, you are asking for trouble. He hasn't a clue what day of the week it is, let alone consumer law.
"Prove it" - indeed0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards