Product cancelled.

bris

cx6 said:

there was clearly a contract in force which they should honour.

quantify your losses and then claim from them

Yea OP try and enforce that and see how far you get.

Money_Grabber13579

cx6 said:

However, as I said before your remedy is not that they can be forced to execute the contract - courts are reluctant to order 'specific performance'

Except that’s not what you said before.

cx6 said:

there was clearly a contract in force which they should honour.

cx6

Money_Grabber13579 said:

cx6 said:

However, as I said before your remedy is not that they can be forced to execute the contract - courts are reluctant to order 'specific performance'

Except that’s not what you said before.

cx6 said:

there was clearly a contract in force which they should honour.

That is exactly what I said before but am happy to repeat it if you don't understand.

There is a contract in force. Of course they should honour it. If they don't, then you can go to court.

You can apply for 'specific performance' (*) but it is unlikely to be granted. On the other hand you can apply for reimbursement of any quantifiable losses (plus costs) - this is likely to be granted. 

(*) A decree by the court to compel a party to perform its contractual obligations. In the High Court, it may be granted in addition to or instead of damages. Unlike damages which are available as of right, specific performance is granted at the court's discretion.

user1977

cx6 said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

cx6 said:

However, as I said before your remedy is not that they can be forced to execute the contract - courts are reluctant to order 'specific performance'

Except that’s not what you said before.

cx6 said:

there was clearly a contract in force which they should honour.

That is exactly what I said before but am happy to repeat it if you don't understand.

There is a contract in force. Of course they should honour it. If they don't, then you can go to court.

You can apply for 'specific performance' (*) but it is unlikely to be granted. On the other hand you can apply for reimbursement of any quantifiable losses (plus costs) - this is likely to be granted.

Even where there's a unilateral mistake to a degree which would make the contract voidable? It would seem a complete waste of time and money to go to court about it.

unholyangel

cx6 said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

cx6 said:

However, as I said before your remedy is not that they can be forced to execute the contract - courts are reluctant to order 'specific performance'

Except that’s not what you said before.

cx6 said:

there was clearly a contract in force which they should honour.

That is exactly what I said before but am happy to repeat it if you don't understand.

There is a contract in force. Of course they should honour it. If they don't, then you can go to court.

You can apply for 'specific performance' (*) but it is unlikely to be granted. On the other hand you can apply for reimbursement of any quantifiable losses (plus costs) - this is likely to be granted. 

(*) A decree by the court to compel a party to perform its contractual obligations. In the High Court, it may be granted in addition to or instead of damages. Unlike damages which are available as of right, specific performance is granted at the court's discretion.

Look up the term "void ab initio". Because that's the effect that unilateral mistake has on a contract. 

It means the contract is treated as if it never existed and was never entered into. The law seeks to find balance between bad bargain and bad faith. 

cx6

I know what void ab initio means.

Re contract mistake. A mistake is not selling at the wrong price. A mistake is not completing a contract and a week later saying 'sorry I mis-priced it'. A mistake is a misunderstanding of material fact. 

MH1927

cx6 said:

A mistake is a misunderstanding of material fact. 

Like putting the wrong price on a website

MarvinDay

cx6 said:

I know what void ab initio means.

Re contract mistake. A mistake is not selling at the wrong price. A mistake is not completing a contract and a week later saying 'sorry I mis-priced it'. A mistake is a misunderstanding of material fact. 

Of course selling at the wrong price is a mistake if an obviously wrong price was used.:
https://hallellis.co.uk/mistake-of-law/

3.   Unilateral Mistake

Unilateral mistake addresses misunderstandings between the parties that relate to the terms of the contract or the identity of the parties to the contract. It does not apply to mistakes about the facts known or assumed by the parties.

In unilateral mistake cases, only one party is mistaken: the other party knows about it and takes advantage of the error. So, it's not a mistake made by both parties to a contract.

In Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) the seller had made a mistake as to the price of goods. It was held that the buyer must have realised the mistake. The contract was held to be void.