Advice needed on internet mis-pricing when the money was taken weeks earlier

MarkyMarkD

rsykes2000 wrote: »

You should agree with his first point, the one I myself made a while ago. The company is foreign, UK law is precisely that, applying to UK companies.

That was a qualification of his first point, not his first point! And I've also said that it's mad to consider taking legal action against a foreign company whether it's Singaporean or registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Dave - it's great that you don't want to enforce a legal contract where you've suffered a loss of bargain. But it doesn't make it the law and I personally DO NOT feel that I've been properly recompensed if I agree to buy something for £500 and then have to pay £700 for it elsewhere because my original supplier changes their mind.

Dave_H_4

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I personally DO NOT feel that I've been properly recompensed if I agree to buy something for £500 and then have to pay £700 for it elsewhere because my original supplier changes their mind.

I have never heard anything so daft in my life!!

You think that you if you order an item for x price and it is out of stock or priced incorrectly then you have the right to demand a refund for more than you originally paid for it just because it costs more elsewhere.

I think if you read that properly a few times you will realise that is a load of rubbish! I think most people will agree with me too...

MarkyMarkD

Did I say that?

I said if your supplier changes their mind.

If they advertise something, you agree to buy it, and they accept your offer to buy it, then a contract has been formed. If they are too incompetent to realise that they've run out of stock, that doesn't affect their liability to supply at the agreed price one iota - nobody's stopping them buying some more stock in.

If a contract has been formed (and I must emphasise if a contract has been formed, and they fail to supply, they are liable to pay the cost of you purchasing it elsewhere, NOT just to refund you.

Most internet suppliers make it clear that a contract isn't formed until they despatch the goods and charge your card. That's fine, as long as the relationship is fair - in other words, if they give you equal rights to cancel the offer to purchase without penalty up to the time of despatch.

The supplier who I won my legal case against did not give equal rights - they wanted the customer to be contractually bound from the minute they placed the order, but then to pretend that there wasn't a contract until the goods have been despatched. They can't have their cake and eat it.

Dave_H_4

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Did I say that?

I said if your supplier changes their mind.

If they advertise something, you agree to buy it, and they accept your offer to buy it, then a contract has been formed. If they are too incompetent to realise that they've run out of stock, that doesn't affect their liability to supply at the agreed price one iota - nobody's stopping them buying some more stock in.

If a contract has been formed (and I must emphasise if a contract has been formed, and they fail to supply, they are liable to pay the cost of you purchasing it elsewhere, NOT just to refund you.

Most internet suppliers make it clear that a contract isn't formed until they despatch the goods and charge your card. That's fine, as long as the relationship is fair - in other words, if they give you equal rights to cancel the offer to purchase without penalty up to the time of despatch.

The supplier who I won my legal case against did not give equal rights - they wanted the customer to be contractually bound from the minute they placed the order, but then to pretend that there wasn't a contract until the goods have been despatched. They can't have their cake and eat it.

I can't believe this is turning into an argument over something so stupid.

You say "nothings stopping them getting more stock in", what if they can't get any more stock in, what then out of interest?

Being a frequent customer of many e-commerce sites, I really do not know where you get this attitude over something so minor. If something cannot be supplied at a certain price because it was advertised at an incorrect price and the company inform you of this and refund your money, what have they possibly done wrong? The only possible reason I can think of someone then getting irate is the fact that they are pi**ed off that they never got a "bargain" which they thought they were getting, as said earlier it's a bitter attitude-that is it!!

So you won a case against a company for exactly this, big deal. I for one have too many more things in my life to worry about than taking a company to court over a few pounds!!! You sound like the kind of person that writes to Points Of View complaining about last nights TV.

devild_2

lol, stop it you're killing me, I've never laughed so much because of these posts

Dave_H wrote: »

Nearly everyone that has replied to this thread seems to have far too much time on their hands kicking off about such small things............. QUOTE]

....... and still he goes on........ and on....... and...... oh you get the picture

Dave_H_4

devild wrote: »

lol, stop it you're killing me, I've never laughed so much because of these posts

Dave_H wrote: »

Nearly everyone that has replied to this thread seems to have far too much time on their hands kicking off about such small things............. QUOTE]

....... and still he goes on........ and on....... and...... oh you get the picture

All Marky's comments are that ridiculous that it needs pointing out!!

Citizen Smith, eat your heart out.

I bet he's the shop steward at work

rsykes2000

Marky's comments are based on legal facts. If a contract has been formed and the supplier pulls out they can be sued for 'Loss of bargain'. The only person making themselves look ridiculous here is you, unfortunately.

Please look at the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (and subsequent amendments) : Section 51 states :

Where there is an available market for the goods in question the measure of damages is prima facie to be ascertained by the difference between the contract price and the market or current price of the goods at the time or times when they ought to have been delivered or (if no time was fixed) at the time of the refusal to deliver.

(ie in plain English, if a supplier pulls out of a contract and refuses to deliver though the goods are available, a customer is entitled to take action against them to recover the difference between the agreed purchase price and the cost of their obtaining the goods elsewhere.

Link: http://www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/sale-of-goods-act-1979.php?pageContentID=15717

Dave_H_4

rsykes2000 wrote: »

Marky's comments are based on legal facts. If a contract has been formed and the supplier pulls out they can be sued for 'Loss of bargain'. The only person making themselves look ridiculous here is you, unfortunately.

Please look at the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (and subsequent amendments) : Section 51 states :



(ie in plain English, if a supplier pulls out of a contract and refuses to deliver though the goods are available, a customer is entitled to take action against them to recover the difference between the agreed purchase price and the cost of their obtaining the goods elsewhere.

Link: http://www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/sale-of-goods-act-1979.php?pageContentID=15717

All very well, but looking at the original post the goods weren't available, well at least the goods priced at £4.99 (or whatever it was) weren't available anyway.

In theory, the only stock available was the correctly priced DVD which is an entirely different item.

devild_2

Dave_H wrote: »

devild wrote: »

erm.....a whole forum dedicated to whinging about "lost" bargains. Enough said

He's like an echo, whenever someone posts he must reply "Enough said"....lol

Dave_H_4

devild wrote: »

Dave_H wrote: »

He's like an echo, whenever someone posts he must reply "Enough said"....lol

I said it once

I really do give up on this now, obviously everyone has no reply so let's just post random comments...