Panasonic TVs for 1 pence

dmg24

It was not part of the T&Cs at the time I placed my order.

Can you prove that? Do you have a copy of the original terms, dated and witnessed by a solicitor?

Not a totally unreasonable view.

Yes, it is.

they requested authorisation to take the funds, which clearly shows acceptance of order with intent etc.

Not at all. The authorisation is an automated process, hence no intent (unless a computer can show intent?).

No, I looked into their T&Cs after they had responded to me advising there was a pricing error. It was then that I realised they had added a clause. I know because I always print out T&Cs when I buy on-line.

You have contradicted yourself here. You did not look at the terms when you purchased, yet you had printed them off? If you had not looked at them, why did you print them off? Wallpaper?!! Or just in case this happened?

mountainchrisriver

Go for the legal route... you might win...:rolleyes: keep us posted... could do with a laugh! :T

goshdarnit

dmg24 wrote: »

The authorisation is an automated process, hence no intent (unless a computer can show intent?).

[SIZE=-1]Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] shows a toll barrier can, so a computer can as well.[/SIZE]

It depends on the working of the automated response though, which is where kodak messed up. They confirmed the order, and the T&Cs were so badly conceived they were doomed from that point on.

stugib

pierre5 wrote: »

Contract is not only formed when they take the funds. I suggest you recheck, its not black and white like that - its a grey area, especially since (as confirmed by my credit card company) they requested authorisation to take the funds, which clearly shows acceptance of order with intent etc.

AFAIK it's only really a grey area because the law was written with face-to-face transactions in mind, not automated systems as dmg24 points out. But I think it's been made less grey through case law.

All in all, nice try but move on

dmg24

goshdarnit wrote: »

[SIZE=-1]Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] shows a toll barrier can, so a computer can as well.[/SIZE]

It depends on the working of the automated response though, which is where kodak messed up. They confirmed the order, and the T&Cs were so badly conceived they were doomed from that point on.

The circumstances of Thornton are very different, and would be distinguished from by any half capable solicitor.

I can see your point that they are both automated processes, but in the case of entry to a car park, the ticket dispenser is the sole element of the process, so no possibility of human acceptance. In the case of an internet purchase, there are several other stages (checking stock levels, picking, packing, delivery etc), where human acceptance can occur (or not!).

Don't give the OP false hope!

goshdarnit

But in the case of Kodak, which never went to court, they conceded on the fact the automated process sent out confirmation emails (and T&Cs they couldn't get them out of the problem).

I definately don't want to give the OP any sign of hope at all, although it could be a good wind up........

mpython

goshdarnit wrote: »

...... although it could be a good wind up........

My thoughts exactly. Pierre5 seems clued up enough on certain aspects of law but won't listen to contrary views. We've had a lot of "tall stories" on here & Anything Else Moneysaving since the resident troll pack went missing.

stugib

mpython wrote: »

We've had a lot of "tall stories" on here & Anything Else Moneysaving since the resident troll pack went missing.

My troll sensor isn't picking anything up for Pierre - his post was too well written and sensible (albeit hopeful) for dangerous-Brooker-Morris-sports

dmg24

But in the case of Kodak, which never went to court, they conceded on the fact the automated process sent out confirmation emails (and T&Cs they couldn't get them out of the problem).

If it never went to court, then no precedent was set, so it is largely irrelevant.

I don't think he is a troll either, just a bit ... you know!

mpython

pierre5 wrote: »

...... the Panasonic E Shop was advertising a handful of products for sale at 1p ....... I didn't think this was too good to be true, ........ I placed an order for 2 tvs.

........

2 days later I got an email saying my order had been cancelled....


...... when a contract is made, therefore I think its reasonable to assume its at the point when they accepted my offer to buy at that price and sent me an email confirm all the details. .......

.......

I am considering making a county court claim against them ..... I think they need to honour this transaction. .......

Does anyone have any advice?

pierre5 wrote: »

yeah and KODAK had to pay out.

It may be a mistake, but surely that doesn't mean you can just wriggle out of it?

Eg you sign a contract and you change your mind, it's tough, you signed on the dotted line?

......

I rest my case.