Consumer rights

Enterprise_1701C

I would contact Consumer Direct with this one, but i am fairly sure that the goods are bought and paid for. They actually delivered the wine so accepted the payment for it!

Out of curiosity, who is it - a bit surprised that they are getting so heavy handed on this.

As I said though, as they are getting so heavy handed, copy the email to Consumer Direct just to make sure. It could be that they are trying to scare you into paying.

magpiejay

thanks jane, will give consumer direct a look. It's V**gin Wines, though they aren't a proper part of the V Group. Can't see Mr.Branson threatening his customers with a police referral for fraud!

To be fair, it was kind of obvious the price was wrong when i placed the order, and they have been reasonably polite with their threats, however i still find it quite surprising a company would risk damage to its reputation this way for a relatively small amount of money - they should be more worried about how their website lets people order wine for free.

Dread to think what might have happened if I'd posted the website glitch on this site, probably wouldn't have taken them 3 months to notice something's wrong then.

Steve_xx

magpiejay wrote: »

I know this is an old thread, but it seemed to have the right title. I have an interesting one. I'm having some problems with a well known online wine retailer. Due to a bug in their website, the price for a case of wine at their checkout screen appeared far too low. This has happened to me twice and i have bought the case on both occasions.

I received both cases of wine and was only billed the amount that appeared on their confirmation page.

Now, 3 weeks later for one case, 4 months the other, they are demanding the difference in payment, a return of the wine (erm...who keeps wine for 4 months these days?) or police involvement for fraud!

All a bit heavy.

Am i right in thinking that following a misprice, once payment taken and goods fulfilled some time ago, a customer cannot be demanded to pay the difference at a later date?

In contract law this could be termed as 'mistake'. See the following legal judgement: Hartog v Colin & Shields (1939). You said earlier that you clearly knew that the wine was cheaper than it ought to have been and therefore it seems that you sought to take an unfair advantage of the seller. Here is a link to that case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v._Colin_&_Shields

magpiejay

thanks Steve. I think you're right. It does seem to be a unilateral mistake, at least on the second instance. I'm surprised i've never come across the term before with the number of mis-prices in the grabbit forum. Technically, unilateral mistakes (fraud?) take place and are discussed here on a daily basis.

I guess my next thoughts are whether a 'unilateral mistake' constitutes fraud, and whether a well known retailer would ever try and take a customer to court for making one. Have you ever heard of such a case in more recent years?

Steve_xx

magpiejay wrote: »

thanks Steve. I think you're right. It does seem to be a unilateral mistake, at least on the second instance. I'm surprised i've never come across the term before with the number of mis-prices in the grabbit forum. Technically, unilateral mistakes (fraud?) take place and are discussed here on a daily basis.

I guess my next thoughts are whether a 'unilateral mistake' constitutes fraud, and whether a well known retailer would ever try and take a customer to court for making one. Have you ever heard of such a case in more recent years?

In this case I would say that it does not constitute a fraud. There was no attempt to deceive on the behalf of the buyer; they were presented with a bill for goods and they accepted it. They did not try to alter the price, they simply paid what was asked.

However, the buyer clearly knew that the product was sold at the wrong price and took advantage, unfairly one would argue, of the situation. Therefore the company could ask for the sale to be rescinded if they decided to bring a case. If some of the wine has been consumed then rescission may not be possible and I guess the remedy in this instance would be to have the buyer pay the difference.

I think it highly unlikely that they would bring a case, but of course we are not party to the sums involved. It could be thousands of pounds worth for all we know, and if that is the case, then the seller could decide to press for recovery of the lost monies.

I do not believe that this is a matter for the police and I cannot imagine that the police would be involved in it, rather, it is a civil matter and the company would pursue it through a civil action.

DCFC79

The shop doesnt have to sell an item at the price if it was wrongly marked up on the shelf

Steve_xx

DCFC79 wrote: »

The shop doesnt have to sell an item at the price if it was wrongly marked up on the shelf

Yes you're right. However, what they must not do is to sell it to you at a higher price without you agreeing to it.