Can a retailer force me to have a refund?

photome

I think they should supply as they took the order and can get the product just not at the price they want which isn't the customers fault
IMO acceptance took place

The-Truth

ClareE wrote: »

Ah ok, is the whole "obliged to sell at the marked price" thing a bit less of a thing than everyone always makes out?

Who's everyone?

I never knew a retailer was obliged to sell at the marked price? and I know a lot about the law. Or is everyone all those people who haven't got a clue about the law and just make up rubbish?

JethroUK

bris wrote: »

Obliged to sell at the displayed price is wrong, however in your case they have accepted your offer so yes they must now fulfil the order. Well they should but it would take legal action for loss of bargain to make them, but for 20 quid it's not worth it.


The way your post is written acceptance has definitely taken place and marliepanda is wrong in this case.

They are wrong and it is breech of contractcontract

However their maximum liability for such a breech is full refund (make the OP whole)

So the bottom line is full refund is always as good as it gets

Nessun_Dorma

agrinnall wrote: »

The only "thing" it is is an urban myth, as pointed out some retailers will honour the incorrect shelf price but they are certainly under no obligation to sell at a lower, or any, price.

This is, of course, true, unless they have accepted the offer, as in this case.

Nessun_Dorma

photome wrote: »

I think they should supply as they took the order and can get the product just not at the price they want which isn't the customers fault
IMO acceptance took place

It certainly did, consideration was offered and made.

Nessun_Dorma

JethroUK wrote: »

They are wrong and it is breech of contractcontract

However their maximum liability for such a breech is full refund (make the OP whole)

So the bottom line is full refund is always as good as it gets

Not necessarily. They have committed themselves to fulfilling their side of the contract and that is to provide the goods purchased. If they did not have the means to do so, then you may have an argument, but that isn't the case here. They are quite capable of supplying the goods.

DandelionPatrol

stevemLS wrote: »

No, doctrine of mistake - recession of contract

There is no mistake here. 'Mistake' is retailer marking a wrong price. In this case, they took a calculated risk and are now selling at a loss

marliepanda wrote: »

They can't source it so they cannot fulfil. She hasn't walked out the shop with it, it's an order which cannot be fulfilled. They are not legally obliged to fulfil it at that price.

They accepted her offer to order her one, but now they cannot source it.

Of course they can source it. They might not be able to source it at the price they thought they could, but they can definitely source it.

Speaking of source - or sauce, remember the 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' rule. Would anyone here who is taking the retailers side expect the retailer to refund OP anything if they could source it even cheaper than was originally agreed? Of course not! So if they are allowed to take a profit from a change of supply price on an agreed deal, they should be expected to take a loss from an increase of supply price on an agreed deal

LilElvis

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

There is no mistake here. 'Mistake' is retailer marking a wrong price. In this case, they took a calculated risk and are now selling at a loss

Of course they can source it. They might not be able to source it at the price they thought they could, but they can definitely source it.

Speaking of source - or sauce, remember the 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' rule. Would anyone here who is taking the retailers side expect the retailer to refund OP anything if they could source it even cheaper than was originally agreed? Of course not! So if they are allowed to take a profit from a change of supply price on an agreed deal, they should be expected to take a loss from an increase of supply price on an agreed deal

So what steps should the OP take to pursue the retailer to conclude the contract as agreed?

JethroUK

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Not necessarily. They have committed themselves to fulfilling their side of the contract and that is to provide the goods purchased. If they did not have the means to do so, then you may have an argument, but that isn't the case here. They are quite capable of supplying the goods.

Yes nessessarily
They are 100% guilty of 'breech of contract'
Maximum liability in any court in this land would be 100% refund

JethroUK

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

There is no mistake here. 'Mistake' is retailer marking a wrong price. In this case, they took a calculated risk and are now selling at a loss

Of course they can source it. They might not be able to source it at the price they thought they could, but they can definitely source it.

Speaking of source - or sauce, remember the 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' rule. Would anyone here who is taking the retailers side expect the retailer to refund OP anything if they could source it even cheaper than was originally agreed? Of course not! So if they are allowed to take a profit from a change of supply price on an agreed deal, they should be expected to take a loss from an increase of supply price on an agreed deal

So they breeched contract
Were over that alreadyalready
Next
Take them to court
The judge will award the OP every single penny they spent refunded and not a penny more