John Lewis Refusing a price match after purchased

davidmcn

visidigi said:

davidmcn said:

visidigi said:

The error by JL is nothing to do with the error in the price on Jessops

Not so sure about that. They offered the price match in the erroneous belief that Jessops was actually selling at the price - and it turns out they weren't.

JL do not have to price match.
They have many many get out clauses, the classic being the 'unique' model number where they add a random letter for example..

If the JL employee agreed - the manual assessment they made of the offer was deemed acceptable at the point at which it was reviewed. Remember the price match is in addition to the consumer right, they don't HAVE to price match.

Sure. But I don't see that any of that affects the general principles surrounding errors in contract law.

DoaM

The thing about the general principles is that they apply where a) there is a clear and obvious error, and b) such errors can be rectified after the order request is processed by a person, before a contract is formed. In the case of the price match neither get-out applies ... by price matching they've accepted that it's not a clear and obvious error, and accordingly a person has approved the price match.

All IMHO of course.

Manxman_in_exile

visidigi said:

Why do I think the OP has a point here.
The email says they WILL price match. They have stated they price matched in error, but that does not change the agreement. The error by JL is nothing to do with the error in the price on Jessops - the offer to price match forms a separate agreement (likewise if Jessops dropped the price further JL would only agree to price match at the point at which its assessed.

If JL had refused the price match the OP wouldn't even be here now and out the cost of the camera.
I personally think JL are on the hook here and would push the subject with JL.

Yeah - I sort of think the OP has an arguable point here as well.  He's given the details of the Jessops price to JL and JL have agreed to match it.  For everybody saying that it's obviously a pricing error to advertise something at £279 when the usual price is £1000, why didn't JL identify that error when they checked the Jessops price?  What's the point of JL checking a price match claim if they're not going to pick up errors which some are saying the ordinary consumer ought to have noticed?  JL are professional retailers so must have thought it perfectly reasonable for Jessops to be offering something at £279 that they (JL) were selling for £1000.

I agree the way the OP has gone about this was a bit daft and asking for trouble if there was an error.

(If JL did have to pay the £700 back it might teach them to take a bit more care with their price matching in future.  It seems a bit much to me that a consumer asks for a price match, JL "check" it, JL agree to it, consumer commits to purchase, JL renege on it because it's an error.  I agree that some errors are unavoidable and retailers should not be held to them, but JL were given every chance to check Jessops price and to avoid the same error.  If I ask "Are you sure that price is right?" and I'm told it is, I expect that to be what I'm paying).

unholyangel

The issue is the price match promise doesn't constitute an offer or acceptance. I suspect JL will rely on their policy, stating that the item must be available for anyone to purchase at that price - if it was a mistake then the item wasn't available to purchase at that price. 

Socajam

Sunkissed1 said:

visidigi said:

Why do I think the OP has a point here.
The email says they WILL price match. They have stated they price matched in error, but that does not change the agreement. The error by JL is nothing to do with the error in the price on Jessops - the offer to price match forms a separate agreement (likewise if Jessops dropped the price further JL would only agree to price match at the point at which its assessed.

If JL had refused the price match the OP wouldn't even be here now and out the cost of the camera.
I personally think JL are on the hook here and would push the subject with JL.

My point is john Lewis don't want to take a loss but they are happy for me to take a loss on an agreement.
my main issues is john lewis say they do checks with the company they price match its not automated as I didn't get that email until the following day.
I have just now asked for a pick up collection and would need proof its been picked up with a receipt  as I am afraid they will use hermes.

Me thinks you were begin too smart for your own good and JL outsmarted your greed.

jon81uk

I think there is generally a difference between
I could have ordered from Jessops, but chose to go to John Lewis so price match for me please
and
I have already bought this and two hours later saw your competitor was cheaper.


Where the OP is trying to do the first one, there is always the question of why didn't you just buy it from the other store.

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel said:

The issue is the price match promise doesn't constitute an offer or acceptance. I suspect JL will rely on their policy, stating that the item must be available for anyone to purchase at that price - if it was a mistake then the item wasn't available to purchase at that price. 

I get your point, but in that case JL shouldn't really be saying:  "We’ve checked with Jessops and have found that the Sony Cybershot RX10 Mk3 Digital Bridge Camera 82920102 is priced at £279, so we're happy to match this price[.[" which to the average consumer would imply that they actually have already checked it's availability.

I don't have a problem with JL ensuring that the prices they are matching against are genuine, but I do have a problem with them giving out a message apparently stating quite clearly that they have "checked with Jessops... so we're happy to match this price" and then changing their minds.  If they haven't really checked that the price is genuine and that the item is available at that price then they shouldn't be suggesting that they'll meet the price.

I presume that for the JL policy to work that they do actually have to check if the price match items are available at the lower price.  They should be checking that before saying they'll honour the lower price, not afterwards.

Sunkissed1

How do we compare service conditions?

We always aim to offer you the best possible service, so we have a range of delivery options, as well as fitting and installation services if you require them. Our price-monitoring team look carefully at how the competitor sells the product, to ensure that it’s comparable to our offer in the following ways:

Stock availability:

We carry a wide range of products, and for us to match the price, our competitor must have the product in stock (rather than available only to order). For products that we deliver, we ask that the competitor is able to deliver in equivalent timescales to us.

How do we compare prices?

First, we need to be sure that the product is available through a high street competitor which has a national presence, rather than, for example, an online-only company. You can find out more about what we mean by high street.

Our team also needs to be satisfied that the product is the same make, model, size and colour, and comes with the same conditions of sale, delivery times and service conditions we offer. To find out how we compare products and services, please see the 'small print' section.

• Order acceptance and the completion of the contract between you and us will take place on the despatch to you of the Products ordered unless we have notified you that we do not accept your order, or you have cancelled it in accordance with the instructions in Change or cancel an order

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

The issue is the price match promise doesn't constitute an offer or acceptance. I suspect JL will rely on their policy, stating that the item must be available for anyone to purchase at that price - if it was a mistake then the item wasn't available to purchase at that price. 

I get your point, but in that case JL shouldn't really be saying:  "We’ve checked with Jessops and have found that the Sony Cybershot RX10 Mk3 Digital Bridge Camera 82920102 is priced at £279, so we're happy to match this price[.[" which to the average consumer would imply that they actually have already checked it's availability.

I don't have a problem with JL ensuring that the prices they are matching against are genuine, but I do have a problem with them giving out a message apparently stating quite clearly that they have "checked with Jessops... so we're happy to match this price" and then changing their minds.  If they haven't really checked that the price is genuine and that the item is available at that price then they shouldn't be suggesting that they'll meet the price.

I presume that for the JL policy to work that they do actually have to check if the price match items are available at the lower price.  They should be checking that before saying they'll honour the lower price, not afterwards.

I don't think they didn't check. I think they did. But due to a third party error (outwith JL's control), it was assessed as a valid price match. Subsequently, they have found out the price match wasn't actually valid because the goods were never available for the general public to buy at that price. 

The actual offer that OP made to JL was to purchase the camera at full price - which they accepted. I'd see the complaint if JL were insiting OP honour that price but they're not. The OP basically escapes being no worse off for having entered the contract & JL cover any risk of depreciation, damage etc of the goods. 

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

unholyangel said:

The issue is the price match promise doesn't constitute an offer or acceptance. I suspect JL will rely on their policy, stating that the item must be available for anyone to purchase at that price - if it was a mistake then the item wasn't available to purchase at that price. 

I get your point, but in that case JL shouldn't really be saying:  "We’ve checked with Jessops and have found that the Sony Cybershot RX10 Mk3 Digital Bridge Camera 82920102 is priced at £279, so we're happy to match this price[.[" which to the average consumer would imply that they actually have already checked it's availability.

I don't have a problem with JL ensuring that the prices they are matching against are genuine, but I do have a problem with them giving out a message apparently stating quite clearly that they have "checked with Jessops... so we're happy to match this price" and then changing their minds.  If they haven't really checked that the price is genuine and that the item is available at that price then they shouldn't be suggesting that they'll meet the price.

I presume that for the JL policy to work that they do actually have to check if the price match items are available at the lower price.  They should be checking that before saying they'll honour the lower price, not afterwards.

I don't think they didn't check. I think they did. But due to a third party error (outwith JL's control), it was assessed as a valid price match. Subsequently, they have found out the price match wasn't actually valid because the goods were never available for the general public to buy at that price. 

The actual offer that OP made to JL was to purchase the camera at full price - which they accepted. I'd see the complaint if JL were insiting OP honour that price but they're not. The OP basically escapes being no worse off for having entered the contract & JL cover any risk of depreciation, damage etc of the goods. 

Is that the offer made by the OP?  I think they'd disagree with you and say that they only offered to buy the camera on condition that JL would subsequently refund them £700, and not that the offer was based on paying the full price.  I think it's somewhat tortuous to suggest that the OP was in any real sense offering to pay full price. 

And that offer made by the OP was based on JL's freely given statement that they'd checked the Jessops price and would honour it.

I don't see that it matters that the root error was outside JL's control, because if they'd checked it properly (as they implied they had done to the OP) they would have found out it was an error.  And the pricing error at Jessops certainly can't have been a clear or obvious error otherwise JL surely would have noticed it themselves when "checking" it and before telling the OP they would match it.

I'm actually happy to accept that the OP has suffered no real loss here, but I do think JL are acting disingenuously if this is how they operate their price match.  I do think they should be better than this.  They can't sincerely say on the one hand "Yes - we've checked the price and we're happy to match it" and then rely on their small print to say afterwards "No we're not".  If they say "Yes - we'll match" I think it's incumbent on them to check the lower price beforehand - or are they so desperate for sales that they prefer to do it in this misleading way.

It also seems to have come as a surprise to the OP that the price match would not be honoured.  If I've understood it properly(?) he'd actually tried to claim the £700 back and didn't understand that they were telling him he'd paid the correct price at £1000 and there was no price match.  Surely they should have contacted him immediately they realised it wasn't a valid price match?  They wouldn't have waited until he tried to claim the refund to check if the match was valid, would they?  Oh - hang on - maybe they did do that.

I know the OP hasn't really lost out here but I think it's shoddy treatment by JL.  If they can't be bothered to validate price matches before saying they'll match then they should honour them.

Sorry to rant on about this but JL (and Waitrose) are not as good as they'd like to think they are and sometimes it shows.