John Lewis refusing to hand over the item I bought.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I’m not sure JL are stating anything about a unilateral mistake, they are just cancelling orders due to a pricing error and hoping the customers go away. 

Until someone challenges them with a legal argument  and JL actually give a reason why they feel aren’t obligated to fulfil (either no acceptance or void contract) it’s simply guess work. 

Above from A_Geordie is correct, if a breach occurs the party suffering the breach is entitled to be in the position they would have had been in had that breach not occurred, with the usual about mitigating loses, this is a basic principle of contract law. 

Grumpy_chap

A_Geordie said:

Of course, a loss of bargain cannot exist without a valid contract. I was merely pointing out that your worked example would be incorrect for assessing the loss of bargain and the correct loss was likely to be the difference in the price under the contract and the current market value.

As has already been hashed out in numerous posts previously, there are arguments on both sides as to whether or not a contract has been formed, but the T&Cs are poor in relation to click and collect. Just because there may have been a pricing error, does not mean a contract was never formed (that's just JL's opinion). 

Just wanted to point out that a unilateral mistake means the contract is void in that there was never a contract which existed in the first place because the usual elements for formation of the contract were not there. Rescission applies where there is a valid contract but circumstances allows one party to take back that decision or to unwind the contract, like a voidable contract. 

I'm not sure I understand your explanation regarding the conflict between loss of bargain and unilateral mistake. If there was a valid agreement and no mistake, then there's a breach of contract by JL and then the damages for loss of bargain would be based on what I've suggested, not the £10 since the OP would be incurring additional expense of £160 to put them back in the position had the contract been properly performed. 

OK, so, if there WAS a contract formed PLUS "unilateral mistake", the effect is to void the contract so it becomes like there was never a contract formed.

If there WAS a contract formed PLUS a pricing error (but not so obvious as to be "unilateral mistake") that means JL wish to cancel the contract, the OP may be able to claim "loss of bargain", so the difference between other retail prices (say £550) on the day of contract and the JL price (£390) so the OP would get the refund (£390) plus the difference to other retailers on the same day (£160).
In this scenario, JL might just as well sell the item for the £390 as that way, JL retain the £390 and the loss is the cost price of the watch (which means JL might still break even and they keep £390 on their revenue line).  If JL breach the contract, the loss to JL is the full retail value which is 100% loss with zero on the revenue line.

Obviously, @olinda99 has a different interpretation on "loss of bargain".

saajan_12

Seems there's some confusion.. I admit I don't know the terms and they are potentially making it less clear so I'll just codify wiht letters. Depending on the exact interpretation, the situation would be one of:

(A) No contract formed until customer collects -> nothing due beyond refund of the payment already made

(B) Contract formed, but price extremely low -> obvious error, nothing due beyond refund of the payment already made

(C) Contract formed, price was a mistake by JL -> if they hadn't made the mistake, then customer wouldn't have lost time while the price rose elsewhere. Claim for the change in price between best available at the time (say £550) and best available now (say £560). Perhaps also for the £100 cashback. 

(D) Contract formed, price wasn't a mistake at the time but they now think better of it -> Claim for performance of the contract ie the watch to be supplied in return for the agreed payment (£390) OR the difference between the discount price and the current best alternative (£560).

The question is which of these it is.. in particular how to differentiate between C and D without always taking JL's word for it.. is there some argument based on how deep the discount was, that it wasn't a mistake. 

wandee

Dont think I mentioned this in my OP but another thing that angered me was that, after being denied the watch at the collection point, and then calling customer care to find out why I was denied, I then got another email from JL on the same day, saying that the 7 day period to allow for collection had now expired and thus a refund would be issued. So not only did they refuse me the watch, they also made it look like I never turned up to collect it, even though I went to the store on the same day that they told me to come.

So they basically were dishonest about their customer's behaviour too.

I know many in this thread dont think it worth me pursuing this with a claim, but if the total cost to me will only be £50 to make the claim, even if I lose, then I think its worth it just out of general principle.

The gift voucher I used was a genuine JL one, for the record.

Grumpy_chap

wandee said:

The gift voucher I used was a genuine JL one, for the record.

Then the refund should be a new £100 JL Gift Voucher plus the remainder as credit back to your card used to pay (or cash if you paid by cash).  
The £20 goodwill gift voucher is over-and-above and can have any restrictions on it that JL decide.

powerful_Rogue

wandee said:

Dont think I mentioned this in my OP but another thing that angered me was that, after being denied the watch at the collection point, and then calling customer care to find out why I was denied, I then got another email from JL on the same day, saying that the 7 day period to allow for collection had now expired and thus a refund would be issued. So not only did they refuse me the watch, they also made it look like I never turned up to collect it, even though I went to the store on the same day that they told me to come.

So they basically were dishonest about their customer's behaviour too.

I know many in this thread dont think it worth me pursuing this with a claim, but if the total cost to me will only be £50 to make the claim, even if I lose, then I think its worth it just out of general principle.

The gift voucher I used was a genuine JL one, for the record.

Not dishonest, just a system generated response. No point reading any more into it.

Principles can work out expensive. It's not just the inital court fee, but also the time and effort you will have to put into it.

A_Geordie

saajan_12 said:

The question is which of these it is.. in particular how to differentiate between C and D without always taking JL's word for it.. is there some argument based on how deep the discount was, that it wasn't a mistake. 

Scenario C just can't be right based on what we know of this thread and what case law tells us about how losses are calculated/measured over the last few centuries. 

Cases of unilateral mistake are very much fact specific, but there are a set of criteria the court will use:

1. There must be a mistake as to a fundamental part of the contract. Quite often it's price but not always.
2. The other party must have been aware of the mistake at the time the contract was agreed. 

There is no specific way to know how a court will rule unless it is plainly obvious. For example, there was an Australian case where the buyers bought printers that were originally retailing at $4,000 but they were listed at $66, and they decided to buy a large quantity based on the price. The Australian court held that the contract was void because the buyers were well educated and secondly, they knew the price was a mistake which was reflected by their intention to place a bulk order, exploiting the pricing error.

Contrast the above case to a landlord and tenant case where the the parties agreed a lease for the price of £65k, but the landlord realised this was an error as the price should have been £125k, then claimed unilateral mistake and tried to have the contract voided by the court. It went up to the Court of Appeal and the landlord lost. The court said it could not be proven that the tenant knew that the landlord had made a mistake when agreeing the lease at £65k, therefore the contract remained valid and the landlord lost out on £65k.

Unfortunately, this doesn't give much clarity to your question but based on my experience of arguments on unilateral mistake, short of the mistake being plainly obvious like the Australian case, its not easy to prove that the buyer would have known the price was a mistake. I could quite easily point to laptops and other tech goods that have significant discounts larger than the discount offered b JL for this watch.

Any argument pointing to other retailers selling at a higher price isn't that persuasive to me, since each retailer has their own objectives, sales promos for different products (which are not necessarily the same as their competitors) and like I said before, it's Christmas so there is already an expectation that retailers are out there to get us consumers to part with our cash by discounting goods.

If the OP wants to give it a go for £50 or so for reasons of principle or otherwise, then I say go for it. It will be an experience and a learning curve especially if this is the first time starting a claim and I don't think there's much to lose other than the application and hearing fees. Just make sure to read up on the rules and what needs to be done at what stages of proceedings to be prepared.