My rights as a customer

Loanranger · 15 December 2011 at 12:07AM

I believe it's an 'invitation to treat'. You saw the 'invitation to treat' but the company declined, there fore no contract was made. Sale of Goods Act.

http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-elements.html

NeverInDebt · 15 December 2011 at 12:10AM

If you want to take advantage of deals or miss prices perhaps you should before you try converse yourself with invitation to treat as mentioned above

Oh and this article mentions argos deal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/441740.stm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] The shopkeeper is making what lawyers call an 'invitation to treat', an invitation to the customer to make him an offer.

So the customer cannot insist on buying the television at the advertised price. If the shopkeeper has put an unusually low price on it - deliberately or by mistake - he can refuse to do a deal with the customer.

[/FONT]

Crazy_Jamie · 15 December 2011 at 9:32AM

Loanranger wrote: »

I believe it's an 'invitation to treat'. You saw the 'invitation to treat' but the company declined, there fore no contract was made. Sale of Goods Act.

Just to clarify this, but 'invitation to treat' does not come from the Sale of Goods Act. It is a common law principle (i.e. it was developed by case law). One of the more regularly cited cases relating to it is Fisher v Bell, but there are numerous other prominent examples.

I appreciate that this is only a small point, but people do need to be aware that whilst it is often practically relevant for people on this site and consumers generally, the Sale of Goods Act is only a very small part of contract law generally.

mooreiswar14 · 15 December 2011 at 2:29PM

i too tried my luck with this, although they are giving me a refund i have asked for compensation for the ourchase interest on my credit card

molerat · 15 December 2011 at 3:17PM

The only option open is to sue for loss of bargain in the courts. Kodak caved in and sent the cameras out at the offered price to avoid court and a legal precedent being set (there were several hundred orders and some heavyweights on the consumer side so the case would have been taken all the way). After that many on line retailers changed their t&c's but I do not belive their fairness has ever been tested in court. Sensible retailers do not take the money before dispatch which avoids any confusion on rights.