free hoover ???

chezza262

http://www.consumereducation.org.uk/laws/english/legalrights/03.htm

I'd agree with the offer and acceptance argument from the above website.

I've never come across this type of mistake before so it will be interesting to see how its handled. I dont think I would personally chase this as far as small claims but you never know - its definately a grey area! :rolleyes:

Edindevon

jmc160 wrote: »

So the buyers have offered £0.00 for the hoover, and some have reported receiving an email with a confirmation - stating £0.00 paid - and an order number. Wouldn't this count as acceptance?

Leaving aside the issues to do with web based terms and conditions, during the tiny amount of time that I studied contract law on my Access course, I learned that consideration is an essential part of a contract. That means that you have to agree to pay something for an item or a service. £0.00 is not something.

Edindevon

reehsetin

Edindevon wrote: »

Leaving aside the issues to do with web based terms and conditions, during the tiny amount of time that I studied contract law on my Access course, I learned that consideration is an essential part of a contract. That means that you have to agree to pay something for an item or a service. £0.00 is not something.

Edindevon

yup just to add consideration is some 'right, interest, profit, benefit...or ...forebearence, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken'

you'd have been better of paying a penny for it (though the courts can still say thats not adequate consideration)

plus i remember when doing contract law - if its a ridiculous offer the courts take into account that the consumer knew it was a mistake therefore the contract wasn't valid, cant remember the actual term for it though

either way if it goes to small claims, the courts can offer you a refund - and id be suprised if you got more than a fiver for their 'breach of contract'

cheapskate58

reehsetin wrote: »

yup just to add consideration is some 'right, interest, profit, benefit...or ...forebearence, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken'

you'd have been better of paying a penny for it (though the courts can still say thats not adequate consideration)

plus i remember when doing contract law - if its a ridiculous offer the courts take into account that the consumer knew it was a mistake therefore the contract wasn't valid, cant remember the actual term for it though

either way if it goes to small claims, the courts can offer you a refund - and id be suprised if you got more than a fiver for their 'breach of contract'

Probably you would get a refund of monies involved in the transaction - in this case £0.00p - but costs may be awarded against you:p

jmc160

but costs may be awarded against you

I don't think they can do that in small claims court.

Tallyho_2

zappster1966 wrote: »

Here's some guff I found online. It relates to items mis-priced online and is from the BBC.

"Until there is a binding contract, either party can pull out of the agreement.

Amazon's conditions of use state there is no contract between the company and a customer until Amazon sends an e-mail confirming it has dispatched an order.

A case last year [2002] involving Kodak seems to back Amazon's stance.

By mistake Kodak was selling the EasyShare DX3700 digital camera on its website for £100 instead of its normal price of £329.

Customers flocked to buy the camera. Initially Kodak said it would not honour the purchases, but eventually backed down.

This was because Kodak had sent an automated response to its customers, and that action effectively constituted an acceptance of the £100 offer.

Lawyers at the time warned companies to tighten up on their terms and conditions and to avoid sending automated responses to purchases.

This is a point which Amazon appears to have heeded."

Did we not get an automated response ? Did they not give us an order number ? Do their T&C not say the price you pay is the price online at the time the order is placed ?

And it has been and still is a bit of fun

The real reason Kodak had to supply was that in their T&C's the email constituted a receipt & acceptance of order & offer .

Tallyho_2

jmc160 wrote: »

Hi guys - I'm watching this thread with interest. I'm just waiting to see the outcome of this. BUt I have a quick question:

There's a debate going on about the relevence of the T&C's in this case, as there apparently wasn't a price advertised, and I can see the point to that argument.

But as has been mentioned, a sale becomes binding when there's an offer and an acceptance. So the buyers have offered £0.00 for the hoover, and some have reported receiving an email with a confirmation - stating £0.00 paid - and an order number. Wouldn't this count as acceptance?

I'm not trying to heat up the debate, I'm genuinely interested to know!

No acceptance by Bissell has been made for an acknowledged sale on their behalf , it is purely an acknowledgement of your order number to be processed by customer services manually at a later date .

Tallyho_2

reehsetin wrote: »

yup just to add consideration is some 'right, interest, profit, benefit...or ...forebearence, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken'

you'd have been better of paying a penny for it (though the courts can still say thats not adequate consideration)

plus i remember when doing contract law - if its a ridiculous offer the courts take into account that the consumer knew it was a mistake therefore the contract wasn't valid, cant remember the actual term for it though

either way if it goes to small claims, the courts can offer you a refund - and id be suprised if you got more than a fiver for their 'breach of contract'

This talk of possible small claims court action is absolute rubbish , no-one has any basis for a claim at all . Bissell have NOT breached any contract at all because no contract is in existence between you & them .

Let's get real here

cheapskate58

jmc160 wrote: »

I don't think they can do that in small claims court.

Oh yes they can if the claim is considered to be vexatious. Taking a claim to court suggesting that you'd been shafted because a company failed to honour the sale of an item worth £179 odd for the princely sum of £0.00p would be , I suggest m'lud, a vexatious claim:p

zappster1966

Vexatious ?
I could use that word quite happily to describe some individuals trolling about this thread.
We'll just have to see what tmorro brings, huh ?

Time for bed !
*boing*