Feel like I've been cheated by Music Magpie

unholyangel

JayWin wrote: »

What about car auto renewal?

What about it?

martinsurrey wrote: »

You are incorrect in applying that case.

In that case one party didn't enter into any contract at all, an offer was made but no acceptance of ANY of the terms was made by the other party, but the offer-er assumed the silence as acceptance, which the court did not agree with.

In this case Magpie offered a contract, with a clause that if the conditions of the phone isn't as expected we will revise the offer and you have 4 days to reject.

The OP accepted that contract by sending the phone, which includes the acceptance of the term about the revision of price.

So the OP did enter a contract.

Not saying its not wrong in some other way, but the contract does exist.

Either there was a contract - in which case both OP and magpie are bound by the terms OR there was no contract, magpie can revise their offer & OP can accept or reject it - again, silence does not amount to acceptance - the rules for acceptance are that it must be communicated to the offeror and that it must match the terms of the offer exactly - any variation amounts to a counter offer which destroys the original offer.

An agreement also must be certain in order to be legally binding. So there is no "OP agreed to the terms saying they can change the price so theres a contract whether its for £100 or £5".

But even if there is a contract, any terms which permit them to unilaterally alter the terms of the contract once they have been agreed are highly likely to be considered unfair terms and therefore unenforceable.

MataNui

The only way to actually test this would be in the courts. I think it may boil down to a simple argument over 'unfair terms'. A offer was made and accepted for the exchange of the phone for £70 so a contract was formed. No acceptance was made of the offer of £8 for the phone so in that instance no separate contract was formed. The argument would be does the original contract still hold for the reduction in value given that the possibility of a reduction is in the T&C of the original contract.

If that term is valid then they would be allowed to do that. The thing is i think a court would rule that to be an unfair contract term.

The government publishes a guide on unfair terms. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf . You dont need to be a legal expert to see that a term specifying assumed consent to a price drop of such magnitude with such a short time limit absolutely fails on so many of the tests in that document (including the most basic test here:
"A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary
to the requirement
of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the pa
rties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment
of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1).
Unfair terms are not enfor
ceable against the consumer.")
.

If that term is deemed to be unfair (as it seems) then Music Magpie owe the OP his phone back or £70.