Everyone Lost In The Ether

Savvybuyer

And the Belvita Biscuits that were £1 last week...guess what they are now?

That's right... more expensive individual price and 2 for £3:wall::wall::(:mad:. On every occasion.

Avoid, avoid, avoid!!

sarahskint

Well my little post office up top of road has its new signs just gone up and it has turned into a whsmith local, does anyone know if they do the lego promos in those or whether it is just the bigger stores? Ty all been a bit awol rl catching me up a bit at the mo x

henrik777

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I'd argue that acceptance by conduct is implied though (actually I don't think this bit is an argument - I think it's a matter of settled law) - and I'd add to this - that, IMO, there is nothing to prevent me expressly, by words, excluding anything that that my conduct, otherwise, might imply.

In order to prevent misunderstanding it could be argued. For example, if you are in a supermarket and go up to a till and hand an SA an item, without you saying anything, they might reasonably assume that you wanted to buy that item. However, if, when handing the item to them, you say "Please can you just check the price of this" then they know what you mean and won't be thinking you intend to buy the goods and form a contract. It's slightly different in that situation, but that's the analogy. The closer situation is this (I'd argue): normally if you put goods on the conveyor and they scan them, then a binding contract is formed at the moment at which they scan the item - your putting the goods on the belt made an offer, by you, to purchase them (implied by conduct, you did not say anything in words to the SA) and their scanning is the acceptance of your offer (this is notwithstanding that some stores will allow you to cancel and not purchase items even after they have scanned them - technically, in law though, I believe, there is a binding contract). If however you put the goods down on the belt and at the same time say "Can you just check the price?" then clearly a scanning in response to that is not the formation of a binding contract.

Similarly (I'd argue again as my view has not been proven to be correct in law - as far as I know no court has ever considered the issue), if I park my car on such a car park, then my conduct may indicate acceptance of a contract. If however, if I park my car on the car park, and the same time, expressly say "My conduct is not to be taken to amount to forming any contract and I expressly hereby disclaim any doing so and I completely disagree with any offer that you make and my mind does not meet with that in any way whatsoever", then the situation I'd argue is totally different. There is, I'd argue, no contract. If someone says "sit down on a chair that I'm providing you and you agree to pay me £500", if I sit down, I agree to pay. If however, I sit down and whilst doing so, I say "I do not agree to pay you anything", then I've expressly excluded what my conduct, had I not said that, might otherwise have implied and thus no meeting of minds, I'd argue, and (again I'd argue) there is no contract.

The point is that a contract is an agreement voluntarily entered into by the parties. I do not voluntarily agree to enter into anything. I do not have to. I can say, out loud, via the putting up of a notice by myself in my car windscreen, I'm not agreeing, despite what your notice says - and moreover purport to exclude everything it says in its entirety and propose my own terms instead. Under which I charge you for touching my car in any way. Then we have a 'battle of the forms' situation. Of course my charges are extremely high indeed, and you can voluntarily agree to them by touching my car!

It's not that people are "happy" to pay £85 - clearly the person who brought the case wasn't happy! - but suppliers can set whatever prices they want for goods or 'services' or facilities (such as parking services or facilities - not sure if this would technically legally be a service or a facility:o:o) - it's just like Mr M can have whatever prices they want - and if we want or don't want to pay them, we can take them or leave them. (Sometimes people buy things at high cost because they believe there isn't any real alternative.) Without knowing about the parking case in detail, I reckon it was this 'reasonableness' thing - the issue raised of whether or not the price was reasonable (by reference to the going market rate). There's limited scope to challenge things, sometimes, on the basis of allegedly unfair terms. Usually when no price is agreed at the outset. (I'd argue my approach is completely consistent with what the Supreme Court ruling - I have not read it - appears to be saying. Here, it seems a price was agreed as surely it's stated on their notice at the outset? Whether or not that price is then 'reasonable' is irrelevant - the consumer agreed by their conduct to pay it. Their conduct was merely parking there - they didn't raise any issue or say that their conduct would not amount to a contract at that stage at all.)

Fact is someone can say the charge is £x (really high) and, if you then park there, without further ado and without making clear that that conduct is not to be taken as amounting to acceptance of a contract, then you agree to pay the stated price. Just like taking a fully priced item from the supermarket shelf and putting it on the conveyor and then buying it, at that high price. Far better in my view to purport to prevent and then deny the existence of any contract in the first place. Then they've no right to charge - I did not agree to anything and I expressly said so. Pity the poor average consumer that just parks in the car park and never considers these sorts of legal manoeuvres by themselves.

The thing that stops you expressly refusing terms is the fact the signs and cameras are incapable of agreeing to your request and any attendant or phone operator will tell you to go forth and multiply.

henrik777

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Why does a charge have to be proportionate to a provider's "loss" of a parking space? Does a price charged by M have to be proportionate to what it cost M to purchase the product?

Clearly not - offers come and go all the time - and sometimes M could be selling an item at a loss (loss leader) and sometimes it could be selling with a large mark-up. I suspect they might want to sell more of the latter kinds of items:rotfl: in order to do their own job which is to make profits (but constrained by the competitive constraints of the market as to what prices they can sell at without consumers generally going elsewhere) whilst we might like to purchase from them more of the former type of items!

Anyway...I'm moving on to dealing with my list, so I'll see you later!:wave:

The perceived wisdom was that it was in fact a trespass not a contract. If you went to a carpark and it was £20 an hour you'd either park or go elsewhere. In the Beavis case the fact was it was free. The Staples copy equipment broke down causing the delay. (he was getting flyers done for the chippy).

The scenario now is that people buy land and turn it in to a retail park. They employ Parking Eye et all to manage the car park to ensure that customers can get in and out and, as it turns out, make extra profit. Now if you are short of time in any store you cannot risk it so you abandon your business and the retailers suffer. How long before profits suffer then eventually leases are not renewed and the car park generates no income as the units are empty ? Soon hopefully.

Enterprise_1701C

Snap-ant wrote: »

_party__party__party_ Drug dealing neighbour on the run - but his 'runners' all caught :T

Hope the cat is safe

That is fantastic news, just wish your boss was one of the runners:)

obama

Hello, lovely Elite :wave:

Happy to report the 2 for £20 spirits offer at M is comparing favourably on the APG, plus a couple of other bits :beer:
1x After Eight After Eight Mint Chocolate Thins (300G) £2.00 £1.00
1x McCain Straight Cut Oven Chips (907G) £1.50 £1.00
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Cheese & Onion Flavour Potato Crisps (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Sea Salted Potato Crisps (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50
2x Three Barrels Brandy (70CL) £27.00 £20.00
1x Disaronno Originale (50CL) £13.50 £11.00
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Potato Crisps Variety Pack (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50

helen4891

Hi,
I've forgotten, who do the plug ins compare to please

helen4891

sarahskint wrote: »

Well my little post office up top of road has its new signs just gone up and it has turned into a whsmith local, does anyone know if they do the lego promos in those or whether it is just the bigger stores? Ty all been a bit awol rl catching me up a bit at the mo x

Hi, the little one up my area does them :j

Savvybuyer

Are the Lynx 250ml shower gels (mostly) now straight £1.90 in A or is there a hidden mbuy that isn't showing online? TIA.

I suspect they're straight £1.90:( - as it's not unreasonable that, with that individual price, they could be just at that straight price - as opposed to - it would be so much better - if they were £2.37 individual in which case they might have been more likely to be 2 for £3 as that individual price and the mbuy would suggest a much greater saving to the average member of the public. So cynical again you see:rotfl:. It's absolute precision pricing. I hope someone can tell me they're 2 for £3, but I suspect not.

Just to be my usual downer unfortunately:( - I don't expect the M comp. to work - judging by how bad two of my stores are about the pricing on these products. So, I suspect vs T at £1.20 each:( - I would be surprised if it picked up the 4 for £3 across mix and match, even though one of my stores remains very clear. £1.90 is just too low anyway.

Savvybuyer

obama wrote: »

Hello, lovely Elite :wave:

Happy to report the 2 for £20 spirits offer at M is comparing favourably on the APG, plus a couple of other bits :beer:
1x After Eight After Eight Mint Chocolate Thins (300G) £2.00 £1.00
1x McCain Straight Cut Oven Chips (907G) £1.50 £1.00
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Cheese & Onion Flavour Potato Crisps (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Sea Salted Potato Crisps (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50
2x Three Barrels Brandy (70CL) £27.00 £20.00
1x Disaronno Originale (50CL) £13.50 £11.00
1x Seabrooks Crinkle Cut Potato Crisps Variety Pack (6X25G) £1.00 £0.50

Yes, well, that one. I haven't seen confirmation of the others though - we don't know, they should work and I can't see why not but we never know. That is a very nice difference on that item.:T

This excludes Scotland, as they cannot be 2 for £20 in M there.
:oI think I may have some better value chips available than yours unfortunately - although that McCain comp. is not bad. Maybe they are what I have got:rotfl: - I'll find out when I reach that part of my collection info. and see what I've got there.