Online Price not honoured after payment taken

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

We had something similar before go to small claims. 

Pricing error on an item. Was being delivered by DPD, dispatch email received and with the courier but we recalled it due to the error. Customer went to small claims and lost as although the judge agreed a contract had been formed, they stated the pricing error was obvious (around £200) and an email had also been sent to customer to inform them we wouldn’t be sending the item - although it still landed with the courier. 

In this situation, I’m not sure the pricing is obvious and it certainly seems wrong to have the item ready to hand over to you, however JL are pretty good at ensuring their legal obligations are covered. Possibly worth testing further though. 

Do you know what the £200 was in relation to? i.e £1800 instead of £2000 or £20 instead of £220?

But yes a unilateral mistake would void the matter even if acceptance took place. I agree £329 instead of £399 seems a bit of a small gap in the pricing. I know a code reduced it further but as someone who knows naff all about the latest phones I wouldn't be able to tell that was a mistake.

DullGreyGuy said:

The most common outcome from a consumer breach of contract is the rescinding of the contract but thats what JL is already doing. The OP will shortly have their money back and not suffered a loss.

End of the road with Consumer Rights is typically a refund but, my understanding at least, is the basic principle of contract law is for the party suffering the breach to put back in the position that they would have had been in had that breach not occurred.

If you could sign a contract, not perform and simply say "well I gave the money back" there's not much of a punishment there and it's easy to think these things are in place to cover us buying tat for a few quid but the same principles should apply to contracts worth millions which is probably why it's considered in such a way and we lowly peasants trading beans get a a bit of luck in our favour as a result. 

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

We had something similar before go to small claims. 

Pricing error on an item. Was being delivered by DPD, dispatch email received and with the courier but we recalled it due to the error. Customer went to small claims and lost as although the judge agreed a contract had been formed, they stated the pricing error was obvious (around £200) and an email had also been sent to customer to inform them we wouldn’t be sending the item - although it still landed with the courier. 

In this situation, I’m not sure the pricing is obvious and it certainly seems wrong to have the item ready to hand over to you, however JL are pretty good at ensuring their legal obligations are covered. Possibly worth testing further though. 

Do you know what the £200 was in relation to? i.e £1800 instead of £2000 or £20 instead of £220?

But yes a unilateral mistake would void the matter even if acceptance took place. I agree £329 instead of £399 seems a bit of a small gap in the pricing. I know a code reduced it further but as someone who knows naff all about the latest phones I wouldn't be able to tell that was a mistake.

It was a Dyson - if memory serves me correct, it should have been £479 and it was on our website as £259 or something like that. 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

The most common outcome from a consumer breach of contract is the rescinding of the contract but thats what JL is already doing. The OP will shortly have their money back and not suffered a loss.

End of the road with Consumer Rights is typically a refund but, my understanding at least, is the basic principle of contract law is for the party suffering the breach to put back in the position that they would have had been in had that breach not occurred.

If you could sign a contract, not perform and simply say "well I gave the money back" there's not much of a punishment there and it's easy to think these things are in place to cover us buying tat for a few quid but the same principles should apply to contracts worth millions which is probably why it's considered in such a way and we lowly peasants trading beans get a a bit of luck in our favour as a result. 

You have to show a loss still, where your idea comes in is where JL and Currys have the same promotion, you select JL, JL then dont honour it and by the time its sorted out the Currys promotion has ended. You then do have an argument for having made a loss as you lost the opportunity to buy it at the reduced price from another vendor. 

English law is not based on "punishment", indeed punitive damages aren't allowed and such clauses in contracts are frequently struck out by courts. English law is instead about ensuring the wronged party hasn't lost out and in this case the OP hasn't (once they get their refund)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

It was a Dyson - if memory serves me correct, it should have been £479 and it was on our website as £259 or something like that. 

Thank you Seems reasonable that an error of around 50% would be considered a unilateral mistake. 

DullGreyGuy said:

You have to show a loss still, where your idea comes in is where JL and Currys have the same promotion, you select JL, JL then dont honour it and by the time its sorted out the Currys promotion has ended. You then do have an argument for having made a loss as you lost the opportunity to buy it at the reduced price from another vendor. 

Yes if OP could buy from another place for the same price there wouldn't be a loss as they'd be in the same position they would have had been had the breach not occurred. As I say know naff all about the latest phones but assumed if this price is an error OP doesn't have much chance of finding another retailer at the same price point. 

DullGreyGuy said:

English law is not based on "punishment", indeed punitive damages aren't allowed and such clauses in contracts are frequently struck out by courts. English law is instead about ensuring the wronged party hasn't lost out and in this case the OP hasn't (once they get their refund)

I think my use of the word punishment was a poor choice The principle is an encouragement or deterrent to avoid such a situation and to reenforce the idea that a contract should be performed rather than one party being free to walk away, otherwise what's the point in contracts. 

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

English law is not based on "punishment", indeed punitive damages aren't allowed and such clauses in contracts are frequently struck out by courts. English law is instead about ensuring the wronged party hasn't lost out and in this case the OP hasn't (once they get their refund)

I think my use of the word punishment was a poor choice The principle is an encouragement or deterrent to avoid such a situation and to reenforce the idea that a contract should be performed rather than one party being free to walk away, otherwise what's the point in contracts. 

It was a good choice because it makes it easier to say it was wrong. 

Still English Law is about ensuring the "victim" isn't out of pocket not punishing or discouraging the "perpetrator". 

Take a non-consumer example, I pitch for and win a role with a new client on 50% more money than I am billing today for a 12 month gig but its conditional I start a week on Monday. My current client requires a 4 week notice period. Ignoring the burning bridges aspect of leaving a client in the lurch I would most likely breach my contract with my current client, to cover their loss I'd propose a replacement via my network which I'd pay for the first 6 weeks as inevitably someone new in will take time to get up to speed. 

I've had to cover my customer's losses but it's not discouraged me from doing it because the rewards of breaching it are far much greater. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said: 

DullGreyGuy said:

You have to show a loss still, where your idea comes in is where JL and Currys have the same promotion, you select JL, JL then dont honour it and by the time its sorted out the Currys promotion has ended. You then do have an argument for having made a loss as you lost the opportunity to buy it at the reduced price from another vendor. 

Yes if OP could buy from another place for the same price there wouldn't be a loss as they'd be in the same position they would have had been had the breach not occurred. As I say know naff all about the latest phones but assumed if this price is an error OP doesn't have much chance of finding another retailer at the same price point. 

What financial loss have they suffered?

They had, lets say to save me scrolling back, £300 cash, they'd hoped to exchange it for a product that retails at £300 but the second they buy it its worth £250 because private seller never achieves shop prices, and instead they still have £300. If anything they are up from a purely financial view than if the transaction had gone through. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

It was a good choice because it makes it easier to say it was wrong. 

Still English Law is about ensuring the "victim" isn't out of pocket not punishing or discouraging the "perpetrator". 

Take a non-consumer example, I pitch for and win a role with a new client on 50% more money than I am billing today for a 12 month gig but its conditional I start a week on Monday. My current client requires a 4 week notice period. Ignoring the burning bridges aspect of leaving a client in the lurch I would most likely breach my contract with my current client, to cover their loss I'd propose a replacement via my network which I'd pay for the first 6 weeks as inevitably someone new in will take time to get up to speed. 

I've had to cover my customer's losses but it's not discouraged me from doing it because the rewards of breaching it are far much greater. 

If you arranged for the contract you are breaching to otherwise be performed in accordance with the contract then your client will be in the same position they would have been had the breach not occurred. 
 
I'd pay for the first 6 weeks

Obviously there is the obligation to mitigate losses so if you are replaceable then such a suggestion is satisfactory. 

Your example demonstrates the point, the party breaching ensures the party suffering the breach is in the same position they would have been had that breach not occurred.  

Where you would struggle with this example to put the other party in the the position they would have had been in would be if your skill set is unique or unable to be replaced a week on Monday. 

DullGreyGuy said:

What financial loss have they suffered?

They had, lets say to save me scrolling back, £300 cash, they'd hoped to exchange it for a product that retails at £300 but the second they buy it its worth £250 because private seller never achieves shop prices, and instead they still have £300. If anything they are up from a purely financial view than if the transaction had gone through. 

The phone was £329, if OP has to buy another for £399 their loss is £70.

To be in the position they otherwise would have been would require then to either find another place selling for £329, which if they can great, nice and simple, but if they can't for the party who breached the contract to cover the difference (or just sell them the phone for £329).

Bish397

Well i certainly do not have it.  I've still had no contact from JL despite e mailing them twice

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

It was a good choice because it makes it easier to say it was wrong. 

Still English Law is about ensuring the "victim" isn't out of pocket not punishing or discouraging the "perpetrator". 

Take a non-consumer example, I pitch for and win a role with a new client on 50% more money than I am billing today for a 12 month gig but its conditional I start a week on Monday. My current client requires a 4 week notice period. Ignoring the burning bridges aspect of leaving a client in the lurch I would most likely breach my contract with my current client, to cover their loss I'd propose a replacement via my network which I'd pay for the first 6 weeks as inevitably someone new in will take time to get up to speed. 

I've had to cover my customer's losses but it's not discouraged me from doing it because the rewards of breaching it are far much greater. 

If you arranged for the contract you are breaching to otherwise be performed in accordance with the contract then your client will be in the same position they would have been had the breach not occurred. 
 
I'd pay for the first 6 weeks

Obviously there is the obligation to mitigate losses so if you are replaceable then such a suggestion is satisfactory. 

Your example demonstrates the point, the party breaching ensures the party suffering the breach is in the same position they would have been had that breach not occurred.  

Where you would struggle with this example to put the other party in the the position they would have had been in would be if your skill set is unique or unable to be replaced a week on Monday. 

DullGreyGuy said:

What financial loss have they suffered?

They had, lets say to save me scrolling back, £300 cash, they'd hoped to exchange it for a product that retails at £300 but the second they buy it its worth £250 because private seller never achieves shop prices, and instead they still have £300. If anything they are up from a purely financial view than if the transaction had gone through. 

The phone was £329, if OP has to buy another for £399 their loss is £70.

To be in the position they otherwise would have been would require then to either find another place selling for £329, which if they can great, nice and simple, but if they can't for the party who breached the contract to cover the difference (or just sell them the phone for £329).

All the usual suspects (Argos, Currys, CPW, etc.) all sell that phone for £329. JLP say £399 (but with that £100 offer). A couple of grey importers like Ourfriday say £299. No-one is near £229. Even secondhand refurbished from the likes of Back Market are upwards of £245.

DullGreyGuy

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

DullGreyGuy said:

It was a good choice because it makes it easier to say it was wrong. 

Still English Law is about ensuring the "victim" isn't out of pocket not punishing or discouraging the "perpetrator". 

Take a non-consumer example, I pitch for and win a role with a new client on 50% more money than I am billing today for a 12 month gig but its conditional I start a week on Monday. My current client requires a 4 week notice period. Ignoring the burning bridges aspect of leaving a client in the lurch I would most likely breach my contract with my current client, to cover their loss I'd propose a replacement via my network which I'd pay for the first 6 weeks as inevitably someone new in will take time to get up to speed. 

I've had to cover my customer's losses but it's not discouraged me from doing it because the rewards of breaching it are far much greater. 

If you arranged for the contract you are breaching to otherwise be performed in accordance with the contract then your client will be in the same position they would have been had the breach not occurred. 
 
I'd pay for the first 6 weeks

Obviously there is the obligation to mitigate losses so if you are replaceable then such a suggestion is satisfactory. 

Your example demonstrates the point, the party breaching ensures the party suffering the breach is in the same position they would have been had that breach not occurred.  

Where you would struggle with this example to put the other party in the the position they would have had been in would be if your skill set is unique or unable to be replaced a week on Monday. 

You mean I am not a unique and beautiful snowflake?

Not the same position, the same financial position, same position would be to find my clone and as far as I'm aware they're still all in the lab. If my network would be available a week on Monday? Couldn't say without testing it but someone reasonable should be available in a week or so after that and that in part is why offering 6 weeks cover for the loss of 3 weeks. A way to try to create financial parity, future losses are always more difficult to estimate by the nature of know one knowing what the future holds but I'd rather the certainty of what the breach will cost me hence negotiate now not wait to be sued. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DullGreyGuy said:

Not the same position, the same financial position, same position would be to find my clone and as far as I'm aware they're still all in the lab. If my network would be available a week on Monday? 

Sorry I thought that was a given I wasn't implying the person you were going to leave could lock you in the building and force you to work in the same way I didn't say OP could force JL to sell but rather should be in the same position they would have which would mean claiming the monetary value if an agreement couldn't otherwise be met. 

DullGreyGuy said:

. If my network would be available a week on Monday? Couldn't say without testing it but someone reasonable should be available in a week or so after that and that in part is why offering 6 weeks cover for the loss of 3 weeks. A way to try to create financial parity, future losses are always more difficult to estimate by the nature of know one knowing what the future holds but I'd rather the certainty of what the breach will cost me hence negotiate now not wait to be sued. 

I was thinking of situations where the company who hire you may lose a client because you are no longer on board or a company may suffer damage to their reputation by losing a specific expert in whatever field, but the relevance of those hypotheticals go way beyond the OP