Cancelled Order

bris

keyser666 wrote: »

Nope is the simple answer

Robin_TBW wrote: »

Another of these posts! Really?!

arcon5 wrote: »

It was you who cancelled the order, so no.

All wrong once again, the retailer has accepted the offer so they can not cancel without penalty, if the op so chooses to follow up for loss of bargain.
This was not a pricing error that was spotted and acceptance refused, this was a proper contract, please remember the retailer is not always right.

Op you do have rights here you just need to use them.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

All wrong once again, the retailer has accepted the offer so they can not cancel without penalty, if the op so chooses to follow up for loss of bargain.
This was not a pricing error that was spotted and acceptance refused, this was a proper contract, please remember the retailer is not always right.

Op you do have rights here you just need to use them.

Actually you are wrong...

Very terms:

Your order will be accepted by us (and a contract will then be formed between us) when we despatch the goods to you. Title to the goods will pass to you on delivery.

bris

arcon5 wrote: »

Actually you are wrong...

Very terms:

No this is now an unfair term, they accepted the order, acceptance has taken place, they can not over rule you rights no matter what they say.

This clause would only work if someone spotted a mistake in the order and cancelled before acceptance. In this case acceptance took place. once again you need to look at the big picture, retailers can't just take your order and money without penalty if they breach a contract. They don't let you cancel without penalty, it works both ways.

agrinnall

I'm in agreement with bris in this instance, although obviously for a lot of the posts asking this type of question the answer is no. I'd say the only way Very could get out of this is if they never actually fulfilled any orders at the previous price, if they didn't then perhaps they could argue that the price was indeed incorrect and withdrawn. But if they sold to other customers at that price then they should also complete their contract with the OP.

Although I also have to say I'm with vuvuzela and would avoid them like the plague if that's the way they wish to do business. Could be a lucky escape for the OP.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

No this is now an unfair term, they accepted the order, acceptance has taken place, they can not over rule you rights no matter what they say.

This clause would only work if someone spotted a mistake in the order and cancelled before acceptance. In this case acceptance took place. once again you need to look at the big picture, retailers can't just take your order and money without penalty if they breach a contract. They don't let you cancel without penalty, it works both ways.

And why is it an unfair term exactly? This term is very common for ecommerce.

wealdroam

Section 28 of the sale of Goods Act 1979 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 bit is the phrase Unless otherwise agreed.

In other words, because the buyer has agreed to the T&Cs, and there is a term in them stating that the contract is formed later, the parties have agreed that delivery of the goods and payment of the price are not concurrent actions.

There is nothing unfair here... both parties have agreed.