John Lewis Refusing a price match after purchased

John_

Manxman_in_exile said:

JL have not made a pricing error here.

No, fortunately not, they’ve sold it at full price, and the OP’s scam failed.
If he’s deluded enough to agree with you he can take them to the small claims court.

Manxman_in_exile

neilmcl said:

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.

I think that's actually a good point.  Do the terms of JL's price-match say that the consumer is reponsible for verifying the lower price?  Does it say that in the "offer" JL sent to the OP?

But then, how would JL actually verify that the consumer wasn't telling porkies?  What evidence would satisfy them - without having to check it themselves?  Surely they'd still need to validate the Jessops' price independently of the consumer wanting a price-match?  (Obviously consumers taking advantage of price matches are slippery customers not to be trusted  )

unholyangel

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Well the issue with that is that if you are claiming the OP's offer was conditional on JL price matching then JL haven't satisfied that condition so no contract exists. 

I'm not commenting on what the OP was willing to do. Merely that they did make an offer for the higher amount. Even if their intention was to get a refund, the offer they made which formed a contract was the higher figure. 

No matter what way it's swung, I can't see any legal basis for a claim against JL

Manxman_in_exile

John_ said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

JL have not made a pricing error here.

No, fortunately not, they’ve sold it at full price, and the OP’s scam failed.
If he’s deluded enough to agree with you he can take them to the small claims court.

I'm glad you agree JL did not make a pricing error 

visidigi

unholyangel said:

Well the issue with that is that if you are claiming the OP's offer was conditional on JL price matching then JL haven't satisfied that condition so no contract exists.

I'm not commenting on what the OP was willing to do. Merely that they did make an offer for the higher amount. Even if their intention was to get a refund, the offer they made which formed a contract was the higher figure.

No matter what way it's swung, I can't see any legal basis for a claim against JL

Here's the price match email in full - the bolding is my own when its italic, the bolding in isolation is JL's own.

Thank you for your recent price match enquiry.

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.

You can place your order using one of the following options:

• Online anytime at johnlewis here https://www.johnlewis
• Call our Customer Services Team on 03456 049 049, 7am - midnight, 7 days a week

The price match is valid for one order placed with johnlewis.com within 28 days, for a maximum of 10 items.

When you place the order, you’ll be charged the full price. Once you’ve received the item and you’re happy with it, please reply to this email to let us know, quoting your order number and this reference number CASE-xxxxxxx. We can then process a refund for the price difference, back to your original method of payment, and confirm when this has been done.

Find out more about our Never Knowingly Undersold policy here.

Thank you for shopping with us.

Customer Services team
John Lewis & Partners

-----------------------------------------------------------------

That is not an offer, that is a confirmation.

They say order, if happy, which the OP is, request refund. It does not state we will review our decision after you have paid in full and decide if we still want to honor the deal.

I don't understand how JL have any legal get out of the instructions provided. It tells the OP what to do to get the refund and even gives the unique internal case number at JL where they have logged the approval.

The employee got it wrong, no doubt on that (and thats not being questioned) but I cannot fathom how the above instructions from JL cannot hold water if queried? Heck last time I did a JL price match they checked for stock online AND called the seller to see if it was a mistake, it wasn't and they matched.

There is simply no exclusion in the NKU policy for this situation, does that mean because there isn't they cant be held to it? Of course not...

unholyangel

visidigi said:

unholyangel said:

Well the issue with that is that if you are claiming the OP's offer was conditional on JL price matching then JL haven't satisfied that condition so no contract exists.

I'm not commenting on what the OP was willing to do. Merely that they did make an offer for the higher amount. Even if their intention was to get a refund, the offer they made which formed a contract was the higher figure.

No matter what way it's swung, I can't see any legal basis for a claim against JL

Here's the price match email in full - the bolding is my own when its italic, the bolding in isolation is JL's own.

Thank you for your recent price match enquiry.

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.

You can place your order using one of the following options:

• Online anytime at johnlewis here https://www.johnlewis
• Call our Customer Services Team on 03456 049 049, 7am - midnight, 7 days a week

The price match is valid for one order placed with johnlewis.com within 28 days, for a maximum of 10 items.

When you place the order, you’ll be charged the full price. Once you’ve received the item and you’re happy with it, please reply to this email to let us know, quoting your order number and this reference number CASE-xxxxxxx. We can then process a refund for the price difference, back to your original method of payment, and confirm when this has been done.

Find out more about our Never Knowingly Undersold policy here.

Thank you for shopping with us.

Customer Services team
John Lewis & Partners

-----------------------------------------------------------------

That is not an offer, that is a confirmation.

They say order, if happy, which the OP is, request refund. It does not state we will review our decision after you have paid in full and decide if we still want to honor the deal.

I don't understand how JL have any legal get out of the instructions provided. It tells the OP what to do to get the refund and even gives the unique internal case number at JL where they have logged the approval.

The employee got it wrong, no doubt on that (and thats not being questioned) but I cannot fathom how the above instructions from JL cannot hold water if queried? Heck last time I did a JL price match they checked for stock online AND called the seller to see if it was a mistake, it wasn't and they matched.

There is simply no exclusion in the NKU policy for this situation, does that mean because there isn't they cant be held to it? Of course not...

As I said, it is neither an offer nor acceptance. It also links to their policy which clearly states it's only available on items which are available to the general public (so even if it was a special introductory offer to certain customers, it wouldn't be a valid price match). 

Either you think the price match was legally binding - in which case unilateral & common mistake would both void the contract. Or the price match wasn't legally binding (and it clearly wasn't - the OP was under no obligation to place the order) in which case the offer OP made was to buy for full price. 

As I also said, I'd see the complaint if they were trying to charge the OP full price - as then the OP would be suffering a loss (without getting into who's mistake it was). But they're not. They've put the OP back into the position they would have been in had the mistake not been made. 

unholyangel

I find it surreal that I'm the one arguing on the retailers behalf. It's normally the other way around and I'd say I'm normally a bit biased in favour of consumers, due to consumer legislation being biased in their favour. 

But I honestly don't see any argument here for the mistaken price match being legally enforceable, no matter what way it's approached. I've ran through all the possibilities I can think of and can't see any legal basis for a claim here. 

Yeah sure bad customer service from JL perhaps, but even that's subjective and unfortunately doesn't give rise to any rights. 

Jumblebumble

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Well the issue with that is that if you are claiming the OP's offer was conditional on JL price matching then JL haven't satisfied that condition so no contract exists. 

I'm not commenting on what the OP was willing to do. Merely that they did make an offer for the higher amount. Even if their intention was to get a refund, the offer they made which formed a contract was the higher figure. 

No matter what way it's swung, I can't see any legal basis for a claim against JL

As long as we agree that John Lewis's word on what they will do is not worth the paper it is written on then you are correct.
I will observe that Dell for example have been known to discount very heavily when they are clearing end of line kit
I bought my 2 in 1 with a 65% discount on Dells headline price so saw nothing abnormal about paying £350 for 1 bit of kit that was £1000. 
Another example which was a cancelled order

Dell Outlet PowerEdge R7515 Server

Chassis with Up to 24 x 2.5 inch Hard Drives

AMD EPYC 7742 2.25GHz, 64 Cores / 128T, 256M Cache Processor

256GB RAM 8x 32GB RDIMM, 3200MT/s, Dual Rank

8x 1.2TB 15K RPM SAS 12Gbps 2.5inch Hot-plug Hard Drives

PERC H740P Controller 8GB Cache

Intel XXV710 Dual Port 25Gb SFP28 Adapter

Broadcom 5720 Dual Port 1GB Ethernet

Dual 750W Redundant Power Supply

2x Power Cord

PowerEdge 2U Standard Bezel

iDRAC 9 Express x5

3 Year Dell Next Business Day Onsite Warranty

 

                 £7,895.00+VAT

Dell RRP Price           £21,323.00+VAT

Saving:                         £13,428.00+VAT

unholyangel

Jumblebumble said:

unholyangel said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

Well the issue with that is that if you are claiming the OP's offer was conditional on JL price matching then JL haven't satisfied that condition so no contract exists. 

I'm not commenting on what the OP was willing to do. Merely that they did make an offer for the higher amount. Even if their intention was to get a refund, the offer they made which formed a contract was the higher figure. 

No matter what way it's swung, I can't see any legal basis for a claim against JL

As long as we agree that John Lewis's word on what they will do is not worth the paper it is written on then you are correct.
I will observe that Dell for example have been known to discount very heavily when they are clearing end of line kit
I bought my 2 in 1 with a 65% discount on Dells headline price so saw nothing abnormal about paying £350 for 1 bit of kit that was £1000. 
Another example which was a cancelled order

Dell Outlet PowerEdge R7515 Server

Chassis with Up to 24 x 2.5 inch Hard Drives

AMD EPYC 7742 2.25GHz, 64 Cores / 128T, 256M Cache Processor

256GB RAM 8x 32GB RDIMM, 3200MT/s, Dual Rank

8x 1.2TB 15K RPM SAS 12Gbps 2.5inch Hot-plug Hard Drives

PERC H740P Controller 8GB Cache

Intel XXV710 Dual Port 25Gb SFP28 Adapter

Broadcom 5720 Dual Port 1GB Ethernet

Dual 750W Redundant Power Supply

2x Power Cord

PowerEdge 2U Standard Bezel

iDRAC 9 Express x5

3 Year Dell Next Business Day Onsite Warranty

 

                 £7,895.00+VAT

Dell RRP Price           £21,323.00+VAT

Saving:                         £13,428.00+VAT

Well Dell have silly mark ups to start with - you can often get same spec unbranded for less than a third of Dell's price. Sometimes even lower. 

Not sure what relevance that has here though, when discussing cameras & JL? 

DoaM

The relevance being that the £279 price was not a clear and obvious error ... it is entirely feasible for a camera that normally retails at £1000 to be on offer at £279. It probably cost the retailer £200 max. They wouldn't normally have such low margins on retail products, but it's not unheard of. The Dell examples merely show that retail vs sale prices can vary wildly.