Iomega 1TB External HDD £19.95

reehsetin

guys, all of you saying its a contract i would agree except for one thing, you need INTENTION to create a contract, with an obvious misprice where the consumer knows that it has to be a mistake, apple can argue that there was a lack of the necessary intention to properly form a contract, so the whole thing is canceled,
ordered one myself so would be disappointed if i didnt get it but just because theyve taken the money doesnt mean the courts will definitely agree with you that there was a contract

Perez

I've just checked and my order has been converted to 2 x labellers and cancelled... do you think they've changed it to try and remove evidence of the hard drive being ordered at that price? Perhaps because they know they've not got a leg to stand on?

I have a print out of part of the order screen stating that the hard drives were 16-17 odd quid + VAT each... think I may well take it up with them tomorrow, since they've not even had the courtesy to send an email...

Any advice anyone?

reehsetin

braken2000 wrote: »

I hope so.

When I worked in a shop we had a camera on sale but was mispriced at £99.99 instead of £299.99. The guy who tried to buy it was a solicitor and knew his stuff. He basically said that if you advertise it for more than 24 hours at a price, then that is the price it is.

Because we all have an order sheet that has been there for at least 24 hours, could that count?

if all of my contract law knowledge is right youve been had! i fell for it almost at work once before two, before i did law, gits who try that, love it now when people come in mouthing off about the law gives them this and that

Graham_Devon

Norman-B wrote: »

Come on! Be reasonable here. We all had a "go" at getting something on the cheap. It failed and we just have to grin and get on with it. As long as I get my cash back, I'm happy. We tried and it didn't work. End of story (for me)

And this allows any company which sells goods to do exactly what they want, including breaking the law and their own terms and conditions which we as a customer, cannot get round (unless they break the law, as in this case).

It's not so much the hard drive, it's the fact that they are running this as a massive company have OUR money and is probably the biggest balls up I have ever seen when it comes to a misprice.

They DO NOT need to change the orders to something with a value of £1 to cancel them. What is that all about?! Why? Why would they need to change the price and description? All they have to do is cancel the order. If I ring up Tesco Direct to cancel, I get 'order cancelled' on my accounts, they don't change it to something else to cancel it.

It's very underhand and can promise you now, the only reason they have changed it all is for their benefit, I just can't see what the benefit may be. Lack of proof for anyone wanting to take it further would be my best bet though. I.e. get rid of any trace of evidence, as that page with the description is a hell of a lot more valuable than a screendump which could have been edited.

guys, all of you saying its a contract i would agree except for one thing, you need INTENTION to create a contract, with an obvious misprice where the consumer knows that it has to be a mistake, apple can argue that there was a lack of the necessary intention to properly form a contract, so the whole thing is canceled,
ordered one myself so would be disappointed if i didnt get it but just because theyve taken the money doesnt mean the courts will definitely agree with you that there was a contract

The lack of intention goes out the window. They have taken the money, that shows all the intention anyone needs.

reehsetin

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The lack of intention goes out the window. They have taken the money, that shows all the intention anyone needs.

look up contract law: mistake
im trying to find my notes, but it basically deals with where contracting parties have agreed to something and there has been a mistake or the parties had different intentions

reehsetin

check that, that was the original thing i was thinking of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v._Colin_and_Shields

Retailers can avoid having to supply at the mistakenly low price if the court finds that the would-be purchasers must have known that the advertised price was clearly a mistake.

Graham_Devon

reehsetin wrote: »

look up contract law: mistake
im trying to find my notes, but it basically deals with where contracting parties have agreed to something and there has been a mistake or the parties had different intentions

But it does not hold up. Otherwise, that 'lack of intention' could cover anything and get rid of the sales of goods act completely. Any company that makes a blunder could just say 'yer, mistake' and the whole law is up the spout.

So far they have:
- Advertised a product at a certain price
- Taken the order (whether or not it was in stock or not, so obviously not stock system in place)
- Taken money, not earmarked it, but taken it from the customer, to their bank accounts for the price stated.
-After 3 business days, changed the order to something no one ordered erasing all trace of what was actually ordered.
- Changed the order to something costing £1, for which they have taken £25 for.
- Gone against their terms and conditions by not telling the customer
- Cancelled the order
- For the second time, gone against their T&C's by not informing the customer.

Thats pretty damn shoddy!!

reehsetin

apple are wrong, theyve messed up, but i just dont think the law would force them to supply the product, sure trading standards should be involved and i wouldnt deal with them again but the difference is that here you know what your buying has to be wrong and apple dont want to sell you the product for that price, because there is such a big difference in expectations, so dont think there is much to stand on (basically the law knows you were trying to pull a fast one)

it would be a different story completely if it was a believable misprice

Graham_Devon

reehsetin wrote: »

check that, that was the original thing i was thinking of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v._Colin_and_Shields

Yes, and that is based on a quote, or as commonly used 'invitation to treat'. The mistake was there, the customer accepted, but they realised their mistake and corrected the price.

No money was taken in that case. The seller did not accept the money. The chaged the price before the money was taken. Thats a different ball game. If Apple had done this, this would have been different and tough luck on us all.

I have old threads stating that people should nto get upset by not getting amisprice as they have not paid. This is totally different, and the way they have erased the evidence is truly awful.

Graham_Devon

reehsetin wrote: »

apple are wrong, theyve messed up, but i just dont think the law would force them to supply the product, sure trading standards should be involved and i wouldnt deal with them again but the difference is that here you know what your buying has to be wrong and apple dont want to sell you the product for that price, because there is such a big difference in expectations, so dont think there is much to stand on (basically the law knows you were trying to pull a fast one)

it would be a different story completely if it was a believable misprice

Apple know they are wrong, hence the whole description change. They know they have broken the law, hence the description change. Change it tom something that they are not going to be out of pocket on should something happen.

You can back them up all you like, but no one has come up with an explanation whos backing them up as to why the description has been changed to a few labels.

I don't at this point care whether I get a hard drive or not. However, being in business myself, I find this fascinating. The amount I could get away with in this case, is amazing!

I could break contractual laws, sales of goods laws, warranty laws, all by saying 'sorry, made a mistake, wasn't sposed to say that. Oh well eh!'

I could speed through a camera tommorow, say my speedo wasnt working and say 'sorry, made a mistake, too bad eh' and the law which says you have to have a working speedo would go out the window! Mistake! But I have intent to fix it...