Info on your rights reguarding getting wrong goods

Tribulation

Hi all.

There's a very long thread on Hotukdeals

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/possible-misprice-logitech-g510-gaming-keyboard-only-18-95-with-codes-38-95-with/890449?page=1

Where basicly a gaming keyboard that is around £85 everywhere, was advertises in Shopdirects websites for between £38 - £50 (depending on which one of their sites you use)

In the title, it said it was a "Logitech G510 Gaming Pad"

Logitech do both a gaming pad and a gaming keyboard, the keyboard is G510, the pad F510.

It's obvious to me (and some that took part in the thread) that there's been a genuine error somewhere, they've got model no's muddled up, given keyboard description and number while saying it's the pad.

Like many others, I gave it a go at that price, wasn't expecting it to succeed and it appears that I wont. It's now removed from all their websites and those that have received their order have recieved the pad, not the keyboard.

Post 297 in the above link shows what the catalogue advert looked like.

I would have said that we tried, we failed, send it back and we'll be refunded.

BUT, others are saying that because an item has been supplied, by law Shop Direct are legally obliged to give them the correct goods and they don't have to accept a refund.

Personally life is to precious to get involved in a legal battle with shop direct, but out of interest, are these people correct please?

One guy has said

"Your next step is to call Citizen's Advice and tell them the whole story.......then you'll know where you stand and they'll tell you what to do next .........DO NOT ACCEPT A REFUND ..your in 'a binding contract' ....they HAVE to supply you with the goods now"

He's also posted on Logitechs forum. I tried to put a reasonable response, but got told effectively I am talking rubbish (nothing new there lol)

http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Share-Your-Thoughts/Logitech-please-help-Very-co-uk-and-Additions-Direct-blaming/td-p/591038

Surely if he's right, that would mean if due to input error and automation a £2000 TV got advertised mistakenly at £20, but on the computer system it linked to another £20 product, if 10000 people received that £20 product, they'd all be legally entitled to a £2000 TV. Cant see that's right?

wealdroam

Have you read the wealth of information on this website?

Start here.

Tribulation

wealdroam wrote: »

Have you read the wealth of information on this website?

Start here.

Some people are so helpful

Yep, i've spent ages trailing through various things, but I still haven't read the answer to my question, hence I asked it in the first place.

I could say similar to what you said to every single question I'm ever asked anywhere, about anything. Use google.

Thing is, if you know the subject your talking about, searching works fine, if you don't, a simple answer from someone that knows, can save a lot of time.

Your like some of the people in the Linux forums, someone asks a question that anyone that knows Linux could answer in 2 sentences, but instead they send them to read a 30 page document where they then have to link to 30 other 50 page documents until they finally find the one sentence they need..

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of people being effectively arrogant to others on this site. If I had found the answer, I wouldn't have asked.

Again, in my question in my original post, the wrong product item description was given, hence people thought they were getting a bargain for product A when in fact they were ordering product B.

Product B has been sent out, people are saying that because of this, the contract has been completed, even though the company has realised their mistake and taken it off their web, even though they will give a full refund and pay costs for returning, people are saying that legally they are entitled to have the correct goods at the misspriced price, as by them receiving goods, the contract is complete. I can find no example close to this on any of those links.

squeaky

The gist of your query seems to be not so much about selling at an incorrect price (which you seem to be aware that a supplier can refuse to do) but that they have supplied the wrong item.

Would that be right?

Optimist

For the people who received the wrong item they are entitled under SOGA to receive a replacement or refund. The discretion would be with the company.

We are now going to get people mentioning loss of bargain or expectation loss and my opinion would be the retailer would argue that any case be rejected in that it fails the reasonableness test or the purchaser would or should have realised that a mistake had been made in pricing.

Tribulation

squeaky wrote: »

The gist of your query seems to be not so much about selling at an incorrect price (which you seem to be aware that a supplier can refuse to do) but that they have supplied the wrong item.

Would that be right?

Sort of. I think the retailer is right by the way.

The right goods cost £50 more everywhere else, so it was an obvious miss price that people were hoping slipped through.

But what's happened was, the catalogue code and price was for a different item altogether to that of the description.

Because of this, people have been sent the wrong goods and charged the correct price for the wrong goods.

People are saying, because they have received the wrong goods, and have a delivery receipt etc, the contract is complete.

Because the contract is complete, they are entitled to have the right goods sent without paying any more money.

This to me seems madness.

To give a made up example to show what happened,

It would be like a company confusing a £20 radio with a £1500 TV, the price and catalogue number is for the radio but the title and description is for the TV.

People place the order for the TV, the order is accepted, payment taken and the radio turns up at the door. People are saying because the radio turned up, the contract is complete hence the company has a legal obligation to send out the £1500 TV as it was the item they paid (£20) for. They are saying that people shouldn't simply return the radio and get a refund, they should stand up for their rights and demand the TV.

Hope that makes sense

squeaky

It makes sense, and since, as Optimist says, replacement or refund is at the discretion of the company - expecting anything other than a refund is erm... optimistic

unholyangel

Tribulation wrote: »

Some people are so helpful
Your like some of the people in the Linux forums, someone asks a question that anyone that knows Linux could answer in 2 sentences, but instead they send them to read a 30 page document where they then have to link to 30 other 50 page documents until they finally find the one sentence they need..

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of people being effectively arrogant to others on this site. If I had found the answer, I wouldn't have asked.

Product B has been sent out, people are saying that because of this, the contract has been completed, even though the company has realised their mistake and taken it off their web, even though they will give a full refund and pay costs for returning, people are saying that legally they are entitled to have the correct goods at the misspriced price, as by them receiving goods, the contract is complete. I can find no example close to this on any of those links.

With all due respect, so many people ask the same question that has been answered previously and if you check wealdroams other posts, you will see he is very helpful and i dont think i've ever seen him being "arrogant" or rude (if he has, its an exception rather than the rule). I understand it can be fustrating when in a situation like this but a lot of the time when someone asks a question on here, the regular MSE posters do lots of legwork and searching on behalf of the OP and yes in some instances we do get people who would rather MSE's do the legwork than bother to do a quick search of the site themselves. To others, it just doesnt occur to them to search.

I understand you said you had read through logitech and hotdealUK but you didnt say you had checked MSE, so how was he supposed to know?

Ok now for the next part. The problem i think you may have if you were to persue this legally is that the "Logitech gaming pad g510" doesnt exist.

Tribulation

unholyangel wrote: »

With all due respect, so many people ask the same question that has been answered previously and if you check wealdroams other posts, you will see he is very helpful and i dont think i've ever seen him being "arrogant" or rude (if he has, its an exception rather than the rule). I understand it can be fustrating when in a situation like this but a lot of the time when someone asks a question on here, the regular MSE posters do lots of legwork and searching on behalf of the OP and yes in some instances we do get people who would rather MSE's do the legwork than bother to do a quick search of the site themselves. To others, it just doesnt occur to them to search.

I understand you said you had read through logitech and hotdealUK but you didnt say you had checked MSE, so how was he supposed to know?

Ok now for the next part. The problem i think you may have if you were to persue this legally is that the "Logitech gaming pad g510" doesnt exist.

Point taken, I publicly apologise to Wealdroams.

With regards to the question, while it doesn't exist by that name, the catalogue looked like



While it might not exist by that actual name, it could be argued that people presumed due to the description they used the word PAD by mistake instead of keyboard, after all they show the G510 keyboard and give it's description.
It is based on this that people are claiming if they receive the pad, the contract is concluded and as it has been concluded and they haven't received what they paid for, Shop Direct are legally obliged to send out what was advertised, what they paid for.

Again, I'm with you all on this. I just wondered from a legal point of view as people are claiming people have a right to demand they receive the keyboard for this price and they are advising others not to accept the offer of a refund but instead to pursue it further.

I was hoping for some sort of precedent or sale of goods act type of example where I could warn people that they should think twice before refusing a refund

Thanks

squeaky

Hi,

Have a look at the FAQs in the ReadMe sticky at the top of the forum.

You should find enough ammunition there for your purposes.

(The link is in Wealdrom's post )

And Optimist's post pretty much nails it.

Tribulation

squeaky wrote: »

Hi,

Have a look at the FAQs in the ReadMe sticky at the top of the forum.

You should find enough ammunition there for your purposes.

(The link is in Wealdrom's post )

Yep, I read those. The closest I found (could be missing it completely of course) was things such as

If goods are mispriced – can I force them to sell it me at that price?

No sorry, that's an urban myth. Quite simply shops don't have to sell anything to you if they don't want to, regardless of price. Yet deliberately misleading you is criminal.


First let's look at a genuine mistake, for instance a £50 jacket racked up in a long line of other coats all at £500, you have to accept the shop's error.



Though if it does accept money and later says that was in error, the contract's made and it's yours (this isn't quite the same for internet purchases though).

I haven't found the differences relating to internet purchases anywhere that's clear for the scenario people have experienced.

All examples I found elsewhere in links from Wealdrom's post describe a similar scenario to the quote above, where it concerns the actual goods at a miss price, even ones relating to on-line purchases, rather than the scenario where the wrong description is given and the wrong goods are sent out.

So if you buy an item from a store, it's miss priced, they can refuse to sell it to you, but if you do pay for it, then it's yours and they cant do anything about that. I understand that.

But the point people are arguing on the hotdeals forum is that if we pay for what we're led to believe is the keyboard, receive an item and the moneys taken out of our bank, that same law applies, the company has miss priced, but as we have now received the goods, there's nothing the company can do about it.

But as the company has in fact sent out the wrong goods, as it has taken our money and sent the goods out the contract is deemed to be legally complete, hence the company is legally bound to take the wrong goods back and send out the correct goods at no extra cost to the consumer.

Personally I would say that as the wrong goods were sent out then no, the contract hasn't been completed at all and these people don't stand a chance in hell, but I can find no factual examples of this.