Item not received - Not sent.

unholyangel

swingaloo wrote: »

So you paid for something that you obviously knew you weren't really entitled to at the quoted price.

Then you got your money back as the company realised thier mistake.

Now you want the goods anyway. #

Priceless:rotfl:

And thats it in a nutshell.

Entering into a contract for a item that is obviously mispriced (and would be obvious to most people) as opposed to a believable deal is contrary to the good faith requirement.

The loss of bargain case arcon referred to basically hinged on the fact that the site (madbid or something alike if i remember right) regularly had deals that were similar/the same on high priced goods. Therefore most people would have assumed the deal was correct. Where if it was the likes of john lewis selling a £150 item for £5......personally I'd say its 99.9% likely to be a mistake.


Just as you can choose who you enter into a contract with, so can they. So yes, they can decide not to fulfil your order if they do not agree to the "terms".

OwtForNowt

At the time I had no idea it was a mis-price. They regularly advertise massive discounts (90%) and not knowing the full price, I didn't realise. Only after looking on the site after, did I realise that it must have been a mis-price.

robatwork

You could post a link so we can ascertain if it's something that's likely to have been discounted so heavily

swingaloo

robatwork wrote: »

You could post a link so we can ascertain if it's something that's likely to have been discounted so heavily

That would be interesting!

RosiPossum

I don't understand why you want the item after you have been refunded?

Trinitrotoluene

Let's consider what has happened here:

1) A clear misprice (it will be interesting to see what the item was that was massively discounted)

2) The company took money from your account

3) They refunded you the money as it was a misprice

Retailers deserve a certain level of protection for exactly this reason. As I understand the SOGA only when the product is dispatched is when the contract is formed, until that I believe it is known as an "invitation to treat".

I don't think you can reasonably claim that you have been put out by this, OP. The retailer clearly never dispatched the item (as you never got it) and you were refunded your original amount. In this instance, the SOGA is on the side of the retailer, as it should be.

bod1467

Trinitrotoluene wrote: »

As I understand the SOGA only when the product is dispatched is when the contract is formed, until that I believe it is known as an "invitation to treat".

Yes - provided that the retailer's T&Cs make this clear. Otherwise contract would be formed when payment was made.

bris

These sales are based on offer and acceptance, you offered £4.99 for the product but the offer was refused so no contract has been formed, the law allows for thes mistakes to be made on the internet.
The computer at their end can only process your order, this will be automatic as it doesn't know whats right or wrong, so all the relevent emails are generated and sent. It then takes a human to process the order properly and either dispatch it for you in real time or reject the offer, in this case the mistake was discovered and the offer rejected, no loss of bargain has taken place.

I have always been a believer in loss of bargain, but the circumstances have to show a genuine breach of contract.

Robin_TBW

Why are you arguing this? Get over the fact that the seller realised their mistake and put it right. If YOU listed something on eBay at £5 rather than £150 and someone hit buy it now before you had a chance to remove the listing, would you then send them the item happily or would you rectify the mistake as best you could?

Misprice sales get cancelled every single day, drop it.