Goods bought on-line using discount code, supplier now asking for the full amount.

arcon5

halibut2209 wrote: »

I wonder what the legalities of not actually showing the T&C are.

There is no legal requirement to display or have terms and conditions. There would be implied conditions and if no other terms was present they would simply not be enforcable.

bris

I also believe this could be a bit of a grey area and think a legal case could go either way.
The code was intended for a specific person, by others using it, it could be seen as an attempt to defraud the company. The burden of proof would be on the retailer to prove the OP knew they were not allowed to use the code but did so anyway to exploit a loophole in the order process.
There is certainly no way anyone on here can say for definate if they had a case or not, their T&C's may have been breached by the use of the code by the OP. This would be for a court to decide if it ever went that far, but it won't so we will never know.

fthl

it all depends on the ts and cs, both of the code and the transaction. the use of the code itself might have been a breach of contract. If so, this would entitle the seller to sue for breach and losses. I agree with Bris - this is very grey based on the info we have and if it were pursued by the co it could go either way.

sarahg1969

fthl wrote: »

it all depends on the ts and cs, both of the code and the transaction. the use of the code itself might have been a breach of contract. If so, this would entitle the seller to sue for breach and losses. I agree with Bris - this is very grey based on the info we have and if it were pursued by the co it could go either way.

I can see the argument, but I don't think there could have been a breach of contract, because at the point the code was offered, there was no contract to breach; there was only an offer.

bris

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I can see the argument, but I don't think there could have been a breach of contract, because at the point the code was offered, there was no contract to breach; there was only an offer.

Maybe, but the code was improperly used which could rescind the contract.
Lets look at some other known examples, lets take a car insurance policy. A customer tells the insurer he has 6 years no claims discount when he has only two, this is to get a better price. The insurer takes him at his word and the contract is formed, the customer pays and the insurance is issued. The insured party now has an accident and the claim goes in, the insurer now does a bit of digging and discovers the customers lie, the insurance is now nil and void. Should the customer get to keep the insurance because the contract was formed? I think we will all agree no, because the customer deliberately mislead the insurer.
Is this any different, I don't think so, can a contract be formed on a lie?

sarahg1969

I think this is very different from your example. In the case of that insurance contract, the buyer has misled the insurer about a material fact, enabling the insurer to void the policy in line with the law. In this case, the buyer has offered a code as part payment, which the seller did not have to accept, but did. The seller cannot void the contract in this case, because it has been entirely concluded.

bris

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I think this is very different from your example. In the case of that insurance contract, the buyer has misled the insurer about a material fact, enabling the insurer to void the policy in line with the law. In this case, the buyer has offered a code as part payment, which the seller did not have to accept, but did. The seller cannot void the contract in this case, because it has been entirely concluded.

No it's not, the deception has now been discovered and the seller wants to rescind the contract, I once again ask you, can a contract be concluded on a deception?

bod1467

The closest analogy to this situation is to consider the code as counterfeit money. But I still side with the "contract is concluded" stance.

fthl

The contract has been concluded I think, but the worry might be that there are either implied or express terms in the contract that say that vouchers/codes can only be used by a certain person, or more likely, that they are not transferable. This means that in using them the buyer breached the contract and becomes liable for the sellers losses. I don't think the seller would want to rescind the contract, even if it could. it wants the cash.

Or, I suppose, there might be an argument to say that codes are void and so there has been a failure of consideration, again leaving the buyer open to action. I can't see a seller doing all this, but I think they could. It depends on whether it was worth the hassle. For one buyer, can't see it happening, but if there were hundreds and a huge !!!!-up happened, then I reckon they would.

cantrememberoldlogin1

Hope this helps.

Leaflet says NOWHERE that it is for existing customers only.

And for people that have placed numerous orders - point out that when people first started using this code, a lady rang up to amend her order and asked about the code - the woman at Hope actually SUGGESTED she make more orders in her partner's name.


Anyone having problems, just e-mail the voucher.


AHHH it won't let me add it! Anyway, could someone go to the hotukdeals site, find the voucher leaflet under 'hope education' and copy it here please? It's on the second page of comments I think. Thanks