Technical error?

unholyangel

Was cached on the 9th Jan with the following:

Acceptance of your order

Please note that completion of the online checkout process does not constitute our acceptance of your order. Our acceptance of your order will take place only when we dispatch the product(s) or commencement of the services that you ordered from us.

And also has:
All card payments are subject to authorisation by your card issuer and we take payment when we accept your order shortly before dispatch.


But it hasnt changed......its still showing the sama paragraphs currently.

williamreid7

unholyangel wrote: »

Was cached on the 9th Jan with the following:

Acceptance of your order

Please note that completion of the online checkout process does not constitute our acceptance of your order. Our acceptance of your order will take place only when we dispatch the product(s) or commencement of the services that you ordered from us.

And also has:
All card payments are subject to authorisation by your card issuer and we take payment when we accept your order shortly before dispatch.


But it hasnt changed......its still showing the sama paragraphs currently.

My order was in the early hours of the 8th. Wonder if they noticed it quickly and changed them.

williamreid7

I know for sure I read different terms and conditions to that now only to find a way to prove it. Thanks again to all who have helped

wealdroam

And on 7 October 2010 their T&Cs said exactly the same as quoted above by Unholyangel...

Acceptance of your order

Please note that completion of the online checkout process does not constitute our acceptance of your order. Our acceptance of your order will take place only when we dispatch the product(s) or commencement of the services that you ordered from us.

And goes on to say...

All card payments are subject to authorisation by your card issuer and we take payment when we accept your order shortly before dispatch.

Pretty unlikely they changed it to something different in between.

somethingcorporate

Even so you get to the same answer.

Even if they do cave they can just cancel the contract and refund your money, you cannot force them to supply the goods at that price.

williamreid7

I must have confused myself 100 % sure I read both statements on the same page somewhere lol. I know it won't be enforced but their terms don't seem that clear even if they haven't changed this to me counters the dispatch term

All card payments are subject to authorisation by your card issuer and we take payment when we accept your order shortly before dispatch

and then there is this
All products that you order through the Website will remain the property of Marks & Spencer until we have received payment in full from you for those products.

I must admit I only have studied law a little bit during my degree, but to me even with these terms coupled with the statement in their email gives some doubt. but again I ain't a lawyer, either.

Thanks for all of your comments and help its much appreciated.

clsmac

I do agree with were you are coming from williamreid7, regarding conflicting statements on when they accept your order.

In contract law most of the time if there are 2 conflicting statement in the contract they are ignored, one could argue they could be see as misleading but the problem you have is this part in the T&C

(If we cannot supply you with the product or service you ordered, we will not process your order, inform you of this in writing (including e-mail) and, if you have already paid for the product or service, refund you in full as soon as reasonably possible.")

You could always argue the fact their discount offer is misleading CPRS Misleading actions. by offered a product at one price but not willing to supply the product at that price
The law is not written in a way which forces them to supply the product at the advertised price BUT it is an offence to advertise or take money for a product at a price they have no intention to supply the goods at.

I do apologise if I have misread the above posts but if I have read it correctly the company has enter into the public domain a discount offer on a product they supply, but once payment has been taking they are then refusing to process the order claiming technical error.

arcon5

clsmac wrote: »

I do apologise if I have misread the above posts but if I have read it correctly the company has enter into the public domain a discount offer on a product they supply, but once payment has been taking they are then refusing to process the order claiming technical error.

Or maybe it was infact a technical problem? I see no benefit to them pricing an £1100 product at £200 on purpose.

williamreid7

clsmac wrote: »

I do agree with were you are coming from williamreid7, regarding conflicting statements on when they accept your order.

In contract law most of the time if there are 2 conflicting statement in the contract they are ignored, one could argue they could be see as misleading but the problem you have is this part in the T&C

(If we cannot supply you with the product or service you ordered, we will not process your order, inform you of this in writing (including e-mail) and, if you have already paid for the product or service, refund you in full as soon as reasonably possible.")

You could always argue the fact their discount offer is misleading CPRS Misleading actions. by offered a product at one price but not willing to supply the product at that price
The law is not written in a way which forces them to supply the product at the advertised price BUT it is an offence to advertise or take money for a product at a price they have no intention to supply the goods at.

I do apologise if I have misread the above posts but if I have read it correctly the company has enter into the public domain a discount offer on a product they supply, but once payment has been taking they are then refusing to process the order claiming technical error.

Yeah as I said earlier I would have no problem with it if their terms were clear and not at times conflicting. It may well have been a tech glitch, but at this time of year many places are clearing stock and it was listed as deal of the day, when I put it through the check out the prices added up to the deal on offer and there was no way for me to remove any of the discounts.

Its the fact that they have taken money and having done some research they had a similar problem before xmas where a tv was put through at a different price and when questioned why some people got the tv and some didnt a member of another forum was told that the reason anyone got any was due to them being already charged anyone who wasnt didnt get the tv. Which to me is more consistent with the terms and conditions I read.

arcon5

williamreid7 wrote: »

Thanks again, and thanks for being patient with me too. I just can't understand when a company states two different thing in their terms and condition it can be clear this has been lifted directly from their website. I also think I have made a mistake as when I copied their terms I just copied and pasted it would seem that they have changed since the ones I read when ordering previously the emailed paragraph was also part of their website terms and conditions. Dam I hope I can find the original terms and conditions, tho even in these it states

"All card payments are subject to authorisation by your card issuer and we take payment when we accept your order shortly before dispatch. If your payment is not received and you have already received the products you ordered from us, you must pay for the products or return those products to us in accordance with reasonable return instructions that we provide to you and in the same condition that you received them at your own expense. If you do not do this within 30 days of the date on which we cancel your order, we may collect or arrange for collection of the products at your expense. We reserve the right to charge you for any and all damage to (or other adverse interference with) any products that are the subject of an unpaid order.
"

They could also respond by saying they should not have taken payment at the point they did as it breached their own terms. This doesn't necessarily mean a contract has been formed or the act in itself form the contract, just they have not followed their own procedure.