John Lewis Refusing a price match after purchased

32Battalion

This thread is just another example of why JL will probably be doing away with their "Price Match Promise" far too many thieves and charlatans around, which just spoils it for their honest customers.

Gift?  Or for sale on EBay?

visidigi

neilmcl said:

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.

The point is John Lewis call their price matching scheme "Never Knowingly Undersold" for a reason. In this case the camera was not actually going to be sold at that low price by Jessops so it's entirely reasonable to expect JL to backtrack on their original decision after further checks.

So basically they agree the price match. Then when you apply say sorry and that's supposed to be okay?

That's not entirely reasonable at all - they could do that to every customer who applies for it.

Its not about morality here (for those that think its a reason - this is a rights board) - its about the fact they told the purchaser to buy the goods (up to TEN of them in fact!) quote the reference and get the validated and agreed amount back.

Jessops mistake has zero bearing on the price match. The point at which it did was when JL were deciding if they would price match or not, at the point they said yes, they committed. Otherwise, whats the point in any of the process - just refuse every price match after the event and hope that X% give up.

KatrinaWaves

But JL don’t refuse all price matches and they don’t run it as a scam do they... They follow through when it’s a genuine sale price. This was not. 

Hypotheticals aren’t helpful. If they had to match mistake prices it is far far too open to abuse, which if we’re honest is what the OP has tried to do. 

jon81uk

visidigi said:

neilmcl said:

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.

The point is John Lewis call their price matching scheme "Never Knowingly Undersold" for a reason. In this case the camera was not actually going to be sold at that low price by Jessops so it's entirely reasonable to expect JL to backtrack on their original decision after further checks.

So basically they agree the price match. Then when you apply say sorry and that's supposed to be okay?

That's not entirely reasonable at all - they could do that to every customer who applies for it.

Its not about morality here (for those that think its a reason - this is a rights board) - its about the fact they told the purchaser to buy the goods (up to TEN of them in fact!) quote the reference and get the validated and agreed amount back.

Jessops mistake has zero bearing on the price match. The point at which it did was when JL were deciding if they would price match or not, at the point they said yes, they committed. Otherwise, whats the point in any of the process - just refuse every price match after the event and hope that X% give up.

We know they don't refuse every price match. But there has to be some room for genuine errors, but their terms don't make that clear.

Without the advice of a lawyer I'm not sure whether there are any consumer rights that have been broken. As it was the promise of a refund, rather than an invitation to purchase at the price.

DoaM

DoaM said:

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.

I felt that needed reiterating ... it supports what @visidigi is alluding to. And of course I'd be very surprised if the person doing the price match did not have access to JL's costing for the product being matched, otherwise how can they make any form of reasonable assessment of the price match?

visidigi

KatrinaWaves said:

But JL don’t refuse all price matches and they don’t run it as a scam do they... They follow through when it’s a genuine sale price. This was not. 

Hypotheticals aren’t helpful. If they had to match mistake prices it is far far too open to abuse, which if we’re honest is what the OP has tried to do. 

So its okay to assume they don't do this often, but its not okay, to say when they took 24hrs, manually checked and approved they should honour it?

Again. They could have said no. Any doubt say no. They didn't doubt. Until they were asked to refund. That for me is far too late, as @DoaM rightly points out...

Manxman_in_exile

JL have not made a pricing error here.  When the OP applied for a price match on this item JL should have checked it then - before informing the OP that they had "checked" the Jessops price and would honour it.  JL had every reasonable opportunity to check that the price at Jessops was a genuine one before the OP went ahead with the purchase - but they obviously decided they couldn't be bothered to do so.

This is not a pricing error as discussed by some posters above.  It's not a typo, it's not inadvertantly missing a zero off the end of the price and it's not fat finger syndrome - it's not an inadvertant "mistake".  What it is is the OP saying to JL "You're selling X at £1000 but Jessops are selling it at £279.  Can you match their price?".   Obviously a lot of posters on here would not do so, but if I were working on price matches at JL the very first thing I'd do is to check the Jessops price and assess whether it's correct or not.  And I certainly wouldn't be contacting the OP to say I'd checked the Jessops price and that we would match it (oh, and by the way, you can buy nine more too!) before satisfying myself that the Jessops price was genuine.

And to those who are claiming that this was an obvious pricing error by Jessops, it clearly wasn't obvious to JL, was it?

And the OP's motivation in trying to take advantage of this price match is entirely irrelevant.  He asked for a price match and JL said they'd match it.  That's it.

neilmcl

I don't agree, I'd argue that the onus is on the consumer to make sure the price is genuine and meets the conditions before putting in the price match.

Manxman_in_exile

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Well no, because when OP placed the order, they were promising to pay the full price in exchange for the goods. 

Even if the previous conversation (about the price match) did amount to an offer, that was destroyed by the counter offer to pay the full price. 

How would you propose they validate a price is genuine before offering to price match? The only possible way to know, would be to buy it then wait 6 years and see if you receive a claim for unilateral mistake. 

Forgive me but I think you are putting yourself into an artificial position to justify JL's refusal to honour the price match.

Any offer to purchase made by the OP was clearly on the basis that JL had previously told him that they would honour the price match and refund the difference between their full price and the advertised Jessops' price.  That is simple and straightforward - and to put any other interpretation on it (ie that the OP was willing to pay the full price and receive no price match refund) seems to me to be perverse and contrary to the facts (as told by the OP).

It follows that there was no counter-offer as the OP was not in fact offering to pay the full price and not receive a refund.  (Ask yourself who could possibly interpret the exchange between JL and the OP as being:  JL "We'll give you a price match and give you £700 back" and the OP saying:  "No thanks - I'd rather pay the full price and you keep the £700".  That's an absurd construction.)

Nobody could read this thread and say with a straight face that:  "Well the OP didn't realise this and certainly had no intention of doing so, but when they placed the order with JL they were signalling their willingness to pay the full price and were thereby extinguishing JL's committment to match Jessops' price, and also forfeiting any agreement they thought they might have had to receive a refund".  And anybody hearing it would surely raise their eyebrows in bewilderment?  All the OP intended to do (and as far as they were concerned were doing) was to take advantage* of JL's price match, and get a refund as JL had clearly said they would do.

"How would you propose they validate a price is genuine before offering to price match?"  Well having given it considerable thought I think I'd contact Jessops and say "Is that price of £279 you've got for XXX a genuine sale price or is it a mistake?  Are you sure?"  I can't believe that doesn't happen.  (Whether it should or not is another matter).  Apart from that I don't know how they'd check it.  But that's part of the trap JL lay for themselves by offering price matches (a daft idea if you ask me).  They should simply offer the best price they can.  (It doesn't quite seem right to me that presumably the only people who benefit from price matches are those who've got time to waste checking competing prices.  Once JL have "checked" and "confirmed" a price match do they reduce the price across all their stores on the corresponding products they retail?)

*And yes - the OP was undoubtedly trying to take advantage of JL's price match, but so what?  Their motivation is irrelevant here.

unholyangel

DoaM said:

DoaM said:

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.

I felt that needed reiterating ... it supports what @visidigi is alluding to. And of course I'd be very surprised if the person doing the price match did not have access to JL's costing for the product being matched, otherwise how can they make any form of reasonable assessment of the price match?

Well again, the price match doesn't amount to offer or acceptance. And even if it had amounted to an offer, it would have been destroyed by the counter offer. 

But I think what you're forgetting is that clear & obvious mistake whether unilateral (only one mistaken) or common (both making the same mistake) would render this contract void. A contract can only be void if it as formed in the first place. So it has no bearing if someone processed the price match request. 

Regardless of whether you're alleging breach of contract or negligence, there has been no loss caused by the "breach". If the mistake hadn't have happened, the OP would be in the exact same position they are now.