fullfilled by amazon prime

ThumbRemote

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

So you know that you have potentially ruined a families Christmas. Affording to eat and heat their homes may well now be a real problem for them and you'd sit there keeping something that caused it & you'd be laughing?

I'm very glad that I'm not the sort of person who would do that. As you said we can all make our own choices.

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

These also aren't large companies, these are people who will be very small in terms of staff and some will be just a one man/woman band. For many it will be their only source of income. Many will be using that to bring food for their families. Going bankrupt is a real possibility here for some. If you want to go laughing to the bank because of someones misfortune that's up to you. I certainly wouldn't do it myself. It's very obvious who the real cheats are here.

So lets get this straight:

Company X uses online pricing software that undercuts their competitors. As a result, company Y goes out of business. This is just how business works.

Company X's online pricing software goes wrong, and puts company X out of business. This is a disaster.

Why the double standards? Isn't your real problem here that customers benefitted, rather than another business?

sunnyD1

unholyangel wrote: »

I see you've still not posted anything to back yourself up.

In response to your above post, see one of my previous posts where I posted:







In a nutshell: Entering into a contract on such a basis is contrary to the requirement of good faith.

entering into a contract. Not a completed contract.

sunnyD1

But hey, its the internet, where everyone is an expert.

unholyangel

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't legally happen now.
Maybe it's not happened because when there have been previous errors the retailer was big enough to absorb the cost or if it happened with a small scale seller it was simply one or two customers that took advantage.

When you are talking about enough sales to totally bankrupt someone, they may well think that legal action is their only viable option.


One other point.
Writing in extremely large, bold and underlined font to try to make your point simply makes you look like a total pillock.

Poster in question just doesnt understand what happens when a contract is void from the beginning.

No contract = no property can pass under it = goods do not belong to the OP. Title remains with the seller.

shaun_from_Africa

Castle wrote: »

Actually the link you provided goes on to say

"In order for a contract to be void due to a unilateral mistake the mistake must relate to the terms and conditions of the contract. A unilateral mistake in relation to the quality of the subject matter of a contract will not result in the contract being void".

I would suggest price is not a term or condition.

Of course the price is one of the terms. If it wasn't, what would be stopping a retailer for accepting an order for an item being sold for £10 then charging the buyers card for £50?
If the price isn't a term or condition of the contract then by doing what I've suggested above, the seller wouldn't be breaking the contract would they?

Standard terms in a consumer contract
Some contract terms and conditions are individually agreed between you and the trader while others are standard terms that the trader uses for all customers.
For example, you may individually agree the price with a trader but other terms, such as the right to cancel the contract, may be used in all the trader's contracts.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/consumer_s/consumer_protection_for_the_consumer_e/consumer_contracts_s/terms_and_conditions_in_a_consumer_contract.htm

unholyangel

Castle wrote: »

Actually the link you provided goes on to say

"In order for a contract to be void due to a unilateral mistake the mistake must relate to the terms and conditions of the contract. A unilateral mistake in relation to the quality of the subject matter of a contract will not result in the contract being void".

I would suggest price is not a term or condition.

Price is not just a term, it is a core term.

:wall:

Castle

unholyangel wrote: »

Price is not just a term, it is a core term.

:wall:

But yet, it's not covered by the unfair contract terms Act!

Mr_Norrell

Castle wrote: »

But yet, it's not covered by the unfair contract terms Act!

That's because price isn't an exclusionary or limitating term in a contract, unlike say the right to cancel. UCTA only deals with exclusion and limitation clauses.

unholyangel

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

That's because price isn't an exclusionary or limitating term in a contract, unlike say the right to cancel. UCTA only deals with exclusion and limitation clauses.

I think we're fighting a losing battle with this one.

Can lead a horse to water, cant make it drink!

Mr_Norrell

cookie365 wrote: »

But that scenario, beyond the unilateral mistake, is nothing like this one.

In H v C&S the plaintiff was trying to enforce the contract. Voiding it just kept everyone in the same place.

I don't think Hartog fits either, personally. The key in Hartog was that it was a mistake in communication. The standard pre contract negotiations had specified "per piece", while in the contract it was written "per pound", and the court ruled that the claimants must have known it wasn't the defendant intention to sell "per pound" due to all the prior negotiations stating "per piece".

I think you could distinguish Hartog, but perhaps there's another case that deals with facts similar to the OP. There's certainly an article that does: "Mistakes in contracts", Buyer 2005, Oct, 4-6 - but I can't view it to see what it says.