[CLOSED] Samsung 28'' Pure Flat Widescreen With Integrated Freeview TV + Cabinet £33

ben500

jason.lawrie wrote:

Firstly I am stunned. Not by the "alledged price of the TV" but how everyone is causing a frenzy over a pricing error. Look at it this way - we are all human and mistakes occur. We've all dropped clangers in our time and this guy who set the price has probably had grief from his bosses over the last few days. What I find hard to believe is the playground behaviour and the "greed" and the lengths some people are going to - talk of hiring solicitors etc etc. Surely you have something better to do with your time. So out of the 200 people or so who claimed to have purchased a TV do you think that everyone is going to stump up money to fight this in court?? I dont think so, pages and pages of threads talking of suing the company, travelling to the offices, all in all its just talk at end of day - did you really expect to get a brand new TV for £33?? If so then you are living a fantasy world. Put yourselves in the shoes of the guy who cocked up - imagine it was you, would you still react the same?? I dont think so, and if you say otherwise then......

It was an error and all you seem to be doing is the attitude I want it and I want it now, I purchased it at the price etc etc???

Put it this way - if you sold a new TV on ebay and failed to set a reserve and it went for £10 when it was worth £300. The winning bidder paid by paypal and was awaiting delivery.

Would you a) Refund Paypal payment and send email offering apologies as mistake had occured or

b) Send out the TV at a serious loss to yourself.

I will leave you with that thought.



A message to Martin and board monitors: Whilst I understand feelings are high on this matter it is being blown out of all proportion and something needs to bring in back into context.

Firstly on catalogue debts remember if you ever signed a copy of the Consumer Credit Act. Most catalogues fall down on this - when you open an account they send you a leaflet or form to fill in and sign to accept the credit agreements - their downfall is that many dont make checks to make sure they come back. I successfully cleared 2 of my debts with catalogues when I requested from them a copy of my signed CCA (I knew I hadnt signed one) - a letter from their legal team said with 'reluctance' they agreed to write off the debt.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both of these posts are yours Jason Lowrie.

I note a hint of hypocracy when viewed together.

I'll leave you with that thought!

blueghost

jason.lawrie wrote:

Firstly I am stunned. Not by the "alledged price of the TV" but how everyone is causing a frenzy over a pricing error. Look at it this way - we are all human and mistakes occur. We've all dropped clangers in our time and this guy who set the price has probably had grief from his bosses over the last few days. What I find hard to believe is the playground behaviour and the "greed" and the lengths some people are going to - talk of hiring solicitors etc etc. Surely you have something better to do with your time. So out of the 200 people or so who claimed to have purchased a TV do you think that everyone is going to stump up money to fight this in court?? I dont think so, pages and pages of threads talking of suing the company, travelling to the offices, all in all its just talk at end of day - did you really expect to get a brand new TV for £33?? If so then you are living a fantasy world. Put yourselves in the shoes of the guy who cocked up - imagine it was you, would you still react the same?? I dont think so, and if you say otherwise then......

I personally believe there is little to no chance of getting at tv at £33, I just want ebuyer to admit to making a mistake - their claims of it was clear to everyone the price was a mistake is ludicrous - if it was obvious why did they put it on the website. They claim no contract was made when they state that a contract is made when payment is taken and confimred via email - it was. At the very least they should ammend their terms and conditions and put a checkon prices before they are submitted live to the web - as many others have stated here a simple 2 or 3 lines of code would suffice - as most items would be sold at profit and assuming not many errors occur it would take only a few seconds to correct such errors. And perhaps payment should be taken before dispatch - i understand in this case that payment was taken before dispatch as the item had enterend the dispatch process being under "Pick in progress" - but in an normal situation they take money first and refund later.

ROCKINGHAM

I agree - the TV @ £28 is by the way - its really about using this example to get clarification in law about how the consumer is placed at a disadvantage when its comes to purchasing on the net. Test cases such as Argos and Kodak were settled Out of Court and a Judgment was never made. So the TV for £28 is merely the vehicle to try and get Case Law to set a Precedent. Ebuyer have clearly flouted the Law anyway with the Terms & Conditions which many of us felt would add weight to the case.

amit_1

JUST GOT THIS E-MAIL FROM TRADEING STANDARDS


Dear Sir,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding EBuyer (UK) Ltd and their cancellation
of contract for the supply of goods. The company contacted this service on
Monday 7th March alleging that the price of a Samsung 28" widescreen TV had
been advertised on their website, incorrectly priced at £28.08 (excl VAT).

It appears that many customers have responded to this offer and Ebuyer, in
realising their error have notified all potential purchasers of the
intention to withdraw from the contract. There are a number of issues which
arise from this situation, not least, the companies contractual obligations,
where the customer maintains that a legally binding contract exists. I am
awaiting further information from the company and intend to meet with
representatives to clarify matters.

My view is that whilst the company appears to have formed a number of
contracts for the supply of this item, they will not be in a position to
supply the goods at the advertised price. The remit of this service is to
consider whether the company's actions constitute a breach of trading
standards legislation. As 'the customer' you must consider the feasibility
of enforcing the contract. A claim for loss of bargain at the county court,
whilst possible, is problematic. I believe you would need to demonstrate
that due to the company's breach of contract, you had subsequently acquired
the goods elsewhere at a higher price. The price difference would then be
the basis of your claim.

As with any litigation, there are risks. You are required to demonstrate
that a contract existed, that the seller was in breach of that contract,
resulting in losses to yourself. Were the company to defend a claim, I
suspect they would raise detailed arguement regarding this and whether it
was reasonable for a potential purchaser to rely on what appears to be a
very unrealistic price.

As previously stated, I have arranged to discuss a number of issues with the
company in the near future. My response to your enquiry does not constitute
definitive legal advice and were you to consider pursuing the matter, it may
be necessary for you to consult a solicitor.

I will advise you of the outcome of my discussions with the company, where
appropriate. In the meantime, thank you for bring this matter to my
attention.

Yours faithfully


Philip Glaves
Principal Officer (Consumer Affairs)
Sheffield Trading Standards

ROCKINGHAM

Sorry amit_1, just confirming ebuyer actually sent you this email? Or did you mean Trading Standards sent it to you regarding ebuyer?

amit_1

ROCKINGHAM wrote:

Sorry amit_1, just confirming ebuyer actually sent you this email? Or did you mean Trading Standards sent it to you regarding ebuyer?

hm i dont no i think it looks like tradeing standards yh it is sorry

ROCKINGHAM

Thanks so if as the email states "ebuyer intends withdrawing from the contract" they have acknowledged that a contract existed. I don't know about ebuyer using a shovel to dig a hole - I reckon they must have a dirty great big JCB!

shropslad

I find that post from Amit_1 very interesting. Why would Trading Standards write regarding correspondence they have had with EBuyer. Surely that would breach their confidentiality policy.

betterbargains4u

Reestit_Mutton wrote:

I would go one step further than that - if there is anything to link this guy with MSE Lurker (other than circumstantially through the obvious anagrams) and the link that was removed can be shown to also contain a virus I would argue that two attempts to infect peoples machines proves absolute intent to spread a virus on the internet - this is actually a police matter.

Surely MSE have enough details to volunteer to the Police so this guy can actually be prosecuted.

Of course, this is in no way intended to be interpreted as support for those wishing to hang EBuyer out to dry - it's merely a reflection that malicious behaviour of any sort, no matter what the circumstances, should be punished appropriately.

MSE...it's over to you...

Just my two penn'orth

RM

Well said..that man!!

esalan

Nice one, shropslad!