External 250GB hard drive £23.86 from Dell

Micky

showman36 wrote: »

:rotfl:.......

Is that it? Nothing else? Or are you going to add yet another edit? You can't leave this thread alone, can you?

showman36

:rotfl::rotfl:

showman36

dont feed the troll nighty night

Inactive

These things are so predictable, an offer is posted that is almost certainly a misprice.

We then move to the " will we / will we not " get it stage.

When we find out that the chances of actually getting the item are getting slim, we move to the " Legal Debate ", this brings out the usual Barrack Room Lawyers etc. threats are made of legal action etc.

A bit of flaming then follows.

Bottom line is; nobody gets the item, nobody sues the company, issue finally dies until the next one, where we start at the beginning again.:rolleyes:

I ordered one, I am not going to get it, tough, water under the bridge, move on.

Ferris

whether or not i get it (looking doubtful i know, tho still have not had either a rescheduled delivery OR a cancellation email as yet), may i be the first to thank dell for provoking some of the most entertaining forum discussion in a good long while... even if i log onto the grabbit forum at 1.30am, someone will have amusingly made a point which will a) have been made before, and b) then be either repeated or dismissed by someone else within minutes (i'm doing it myself )

sheer quality. keep it up, guys

ianonline

ianonline wrote: »

I'll probably stay subscribed to this thread for the time being, until I get bored with it all, by which time there'll no doubt be another misprice for us all to jump on.;)

Well, the time has come for me to bid farewell to this thread. :wave:

I'll sign off by pointing people in the direction of the case of Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] ("an important English case in contract law regarding 'unilateral mistake').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v._Colin_and_Shields

Apologies if it's already been mentioned in this thread, and OK it's an old case, but it's still relevant and shows that misprices aren't just a modern-day internet phenomonum:

The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake.

This case has become a highly relevant precedent in the modern context of e-shopping on the Internet, when online retailers sometimes get the published price wrong and receive hundreds of online orders (automatically accepted) before they discover their error - e.g. advertising a £299 television on the website for £2.99. 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.

Now i know people will argue that the facts of this case are different because it wasn't CLEARLY a mistake (yeah, right:rolleyes: ), and so many people are getting hung up on the fact that a contract must have been created because they've received confirmation, or their money's been taken, but what people seem to be missing is the fact that a contract IS NOT ALWAYS SET IN STONE, and in certain circumstances it can be voided, and therefore need not be honoured.

At the end of the day, the above case from 1939 shows that courts will tend to apply COMMON SENSE to their judgement in determining whether a GENUINE MISTAKE has occurred.

See y'all.;)

Ian :cool:

Alfie_E

How could someone be expected to be aware of the following?

The [Dell] product code and price of your order related to a completely different product, and was incorrectly linked to the description of the Iomega Hard Disc Drive you requested. In fact, this is a discontinued product and is no longer in stock.

The very fact that it is a product no longer manufactured by Iomega could reasonably lead to the conclusion that the price was correct. How could we know they were selling an item they didn’t have in stock and had no way of getting? I’ve read that Dell flogged off a load of slightly out-of-date printers, one time. They seemed to have plenty of those in stock.

Odd_Fellow

Inactive wrote: »

These things are so predictable, an offer is posted that is almost certainly a misprice.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. The price of these things is falling as larger drives get produced. It may have been quite a bit lower than some other sellers, but I don't think it was stupidly to entirely be covered by your statement. Yes, it might have been a mistake, but there is an equal chance it was genuine.

hammy_the_hammer

ianonline wrote: »

Well, the time has come for me to bid farewell to this thread. :wave:

I'll sign off by pointing people in the direction of the case of Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] ("an important English case in contract law regarding 'unilateral mistake').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v._Colin_and_Shields

Apologies if it's already been mentioned in this thread, and OK it's an old case, but it's still relevant and shows that misprices aren't just a modern-day internet phenomonum:



Now i know people will argue that the facts of this case are different because it wasn't CLEARLY a mistake (yeah, right:rolleyes: ), and so many people are getting hung up on the fact that a contract must have been created because they've received confirmation, or their money's been taken, but what people seem to be missing is the fact that a contract IS NOT ALWAYS SET IN STONE, and in certain circumstances it can be voided, and therefore need not be honoured.

At the end of the day, the above case from 1939 shows that courts will tend to apply COMMON SENSE to their judgement in determining whether a GENUINE MISTAKE has occurred.

See y'all.;)

Ian :cool:

your example isn't a very good one from wikpedia
a £299 telly being offered at £2.99 would have to translate in the dell scenario to a £60 hard drive being offered at 60 pence.
half price on an item being definitely mispriced ????
a £299 telly being offered at £150 wouldn't make you think it's some kind of misprice.
also the 2 examples you gave from wikpedia show where an obvious mistake was made ...dell didn't say the £23 hard drive should have been £230 ...they've just come out with complete bull

Micky

In Hartog v Colin Shields there was discussion about a previous, higher, price. This hasn't occurred with the current Dell transaction. Ultimately, if Dell don't supply then the contract would have to be tested in court, which is unlikely for a £25 item.