Company didn't supply high value advertised goods - what next

Boohoo

Just had a quick google and came up with this, it may not be the one that the OP was on about.


https://discountslr.co.uk/blackmagic_cintel_film_scanner_5288556.php?utm_source=googleshopping&utm_campaign=googleshopping&utm_content=5288556&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI77W7noOl4AIVQ7HtCh1F8AnnEAkYASABEgLEkfD_BwE

fitzrovia

Ok thanks for your replies. You're right, it is out of proportion and a £23k mistake is a big one. But it wasn't just a typo, it was a full product description, different parts of the page, photos, and the correspondence between the company and I.

I never checked the price of the "real" unit because I was asking the company to give me what they had advertised - I couldn't have imagined it costing £24000.

At least I have some perspective now. But when the company sent their rude letter I guess I wanted to show them what for.

DoaM

As per others, if what you've received for £1,200 doesn't meet your requirements then simply return the goods and cancel the contract for a full refund of all monies paid. As the goods don't match the description (rather than this being a change of mind) then the seller is also liable for the returns cost (under consumer legislation - if this was a consumer purchase).

There is one interesting sidebar to this ... the "obvious error" scenario usually results from a website error whereby there's been no human interaction prior to a contract being formed. This isn't the case here.

fitzrovia

Thank you DoaM –!that's what I was getting it. It wasn't a mistake that the company immediately flagged, or one that I only discovered when it arrived.

I entered into lengthy correspondence with them about the item I thought I was receiving.

askmeaboutsofas

copies of the website description at the time of purchase and then <b>after they changed it when I queried why I hadn't received what was advertised</b>.

So to clarify, after you informed them that you were expecting expensive item A and received the cheaper item B instead, they changed the description on their website from expensive item A to cheaper item B? So the website now clearly states that if you pay the £1200 you will receive item B?


This appears to be an obvious case of "seller made a mistake", and the seller has now corrected the mistake on their website so it does not look like they are being deliberately misleading. You have the right to a full refund, and the seller should be responsible for the collection/return costs of the item you received in error. You do not have the right to force them to supply expensive item A at the price of cheaper item B.

Your card company can force a refund, but they cannot force the seller to supply the goods. Trading Standards will be interested if this forms part of a pattern of misleading behaviour on the part of the seller, but again as it looks like a genuine mistake they won't do anything.

The merchant has sent me a nasty letter telling me that i have "created a dispute where no such dispute exists in order to unduly profit from your anticipated settlement".
They go on to say that I must have been aware that the advertised item was worth £24000 rather than £1200.

I don't know what else was in the letter, but the bit you've quoted is not wrong. Any reasonable person who knows the value of item A would be very surprised to find it at the price of item B. It's an obvious mistake, and you can't legally force them to allow you to benefit from their mistake.

KatrinaWaves

fitzrovia wrote: »

Ok thanks for your replies. You're right, it is out of proportion and a £23k mistake is a big one. But it wasn't just a typo, it was a full product description, different parts of the page, photos, and the correspondence between the company and I.

I never checked the price of the "real" unit because I was asking the company to give me what they had advertised - I couldn't have imagined it costing £24000.

At least I have some perspective now. But when the company sent their rude letter I guess I wanted to show them what for.

The letter was probably a stock letter, as with that level of 'discount' I imagine they had a few people trying it.