At what point is a 'contract' formed in an online transaction?

esuhl

As the above posts have made clear, the contract would legally be deemed to have been "accepted" when the goods were dispatched (I'm not 100% sure, but I think the act of charging your card may also be considered acceptance of the contract).

Their part of the contract is to deliver the goods to you at the price you paid. The fact that they chose to use an independent courier rather than deliver the goods themselves is irrelevant. If the courier doesn't deliver, you can still claim a breach of contract with the retailer (who could then, in turn, claim a breach of contract with the courier if the non-delivery was their fault).

So, in short, the retailer needs to supply you with the goods for the price you paid. If they do not, I think you could theoretically sue for damages - i.e. if the order cost you £100 (using a £50 discount code that has now expired), and would cost you £120 from the next cheapest retailer, you could sue for £70 (the lost £50 discount plus the £20 extra it will cost for you to get the goods elsewhere).

I'm not a lawyer, but that's my best interpretation of the law anyway!

wealdroam

Well, my interpretation of the law is somewhat different.
(I too am not a lawyer)

The Sale of Goods Act says...

28 Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions.

Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions, that is to say, the seller must be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price and the buyer must be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of the goods.

The important words there are Unless otherwise agreed.

Their T&Cs, as quoted in post #8, state when the contract is formed, and this would've been agreed to by the customer at the time of purchase.

In my opinion, their T&Cs in this respect overrule the default position of the contract being formed when the money is paid.

esuhl

wealdroam wrote: »

Well, my interpretation of the law is somewhat different.
(I too am not a lawyer)

The Sale of Goods Act says...The important words there are Unless otherwise agreed.

Their T&Cs, as quoted in post #8, state when the contract is formed, and this would've been agreed to by the customer at the time of purchase.

In my opinion, their T&Cs in this respect overrule the default position of the contract being formed when the money is paid.

That's true, but the terms said that...

An offer made by you to purchase a product shall only be deemed to be accepted by us when we despatch that product to you and send you an Order despatch email...

And those two conditions appear to have been met:

moromir wrote: »

...apparently the parcel had been delivered to the depot but without a full address on it.

moromir wrote: »

I do indeed have a dispatch confirmation email.

So I think my legal interpretation is okay...

wealdroam

Oh, I agree.

Sorry, I should've been clearer.
The bit I was reacting to was...
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the act of charging your card may also be considered acceptance of the contract

Also, in post #6 the OP asked...

moromir wrote: »

As a point of interest - can the retailer dictate at what point a contract is formed then? Is there no legalese for when it is formed? (ie when an order is acknowledged, or when payment is taken, or when it is dispatched? Is it simply permitted for a retailer to change their mind at any point and say they are cancelling and refunding?)

Apologies again for not being clearer. :beer:

esuhl

Ah, I see what you mean! But I'm sure I read somewhere about a case where a company was claiming not to have accepted a contract, but the fact that they had charged the customer was taken to mean that they were enforcing the terms of the contract, and had therefore accepted it.

If I were to say, "Give me that book and I'll pay you £10." and you handed over the book, I couldn't then run off without paying and return the book a week later saying that I had decided not to accept the contract.

As I said, I'm not 100% sure about this... but I thought I'd read that somewhere... Maybe the law came about by precedent rather than statute...?

wealdroam

esuhl wrote: »

If I were to say, "Give me that book and I'll pay you £10." and you handed over the book, I couldn't then run off without paying and return the book a week later saying that I had decided not to accept the contract.

In this example, again the important words are Unless otherwise agreed.
Nothing has been 'otherwise agreed', so 'delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions'.

But in the OP's example, he had agreed to an alternative condition... probably by clicking on something like 'I have read and agree to the Terms & Conditions'.

unholyangel

esuhl wrote: »

Ah, I see what you mean! But I'm sure I read somewhere about a case where a company was claiming not to have accepted a contract, but the fact that they had charged the customer was taken to mean that they were enforcing the terms of the contract, and had therefore accepted it.

If I were to say, "Give me that book and I'll pay you £10." and you handed over the book, I couldn't then run off without paying and return the book a week later saying that I had decided not to accept the contract.

As I said, I'm not 100% sure about this... but I thought I'd read that somewhere... Maybe the law came about by precedent rather than statute...?

There was a case a while back involving a massive retailer (possibly dixons?) but in that case, the terms and conditions stated contract was formed upon acceptance and payment.....not delivery. At least, from what i remember.

It was all to do with a pricing error.