widescreen TVs for 49p!!!!! [CLOSED]

Sarahsaver

i can't beieve it either - does anyone really expect to get the telly, and hasn't homebase just got itself a lot of free publicity over this whole c**kup! And what's the point in getting stressed over it? Honestly, who will be the first to sue for compensation for the stress caused by the whole 49p tv episode?
I'll just get me coat...

Zaphod_Beblebrocks

After Argos withdrew its erroneous price-tag on the Internet of £3 for a television set, buyers are furious and talk of compensation - but do they have a point? The BBC's legal affairs correspondent, Joshua Rozenberg, explains.


Joshua Rozenberg
A shopkeeper has a television for sale. He puts it in the window with a large sign advertising the price. A customer sees it in the shop window and offers to buy it.

The shopkeeper does not have to sell the television if he does not want to. At that stage there is no contract.

The shopkeeper is making what lawyers call an 'invitation to treat', an invitation to the customer to make him an offer.



The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones: "For a while the decimal point was in the wrong place"
So the customer cannot insist on buying the television at the advertised price. If the shopkeeper has put an unusually low price on it - deliberately or by mistake - he can refuse to do a deal with the customer.

Argos does not have to sell you a television for £3.

However, if the company accepts your order electronically then there may be a valid contract.

A customer who gave Argos his credit card number received what was called a Unique Order Code. That may be proof of a contract, although Argos said all items were "subject to availability".

And it is also possible for the courts to declare a contract void if the seller has made a genuine mistake.

The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 makes it a criminal offence to give consumers a misleading price indication.

Shopkeepers in England and Wales can be fined up to £5000 in the magistrates' courts each time a consumer is misled. It's a defence for the shopkeeper to show he acted diligently and took all reasonable steps to avoid giving the consumer a misleading indication.

But a company could not just claim it was a mistake: Argos would need to show it had reliable systems in place designed to stop this sort of thing happening.

The fact that Argos displayed its prices on the Internet should make no difference. The Consumer Protection Act covers giving misleading price indications 'by any means whatever'.

Local trading standards officers could take action in the part of the country where Argos trades or where consumers happen to live


There are loads of differing opinions which we can paste from websites this one makes an arguement both ways.

Woby_Tide

someone said similar on the Samsung/Ebuyer thread that resides on this same board but never came back about it, was going for the loss of bargain line.

(that said this topic is nigh on a complete repeat of the Samsung/Ebuyer topic, all the speculation and arguments "I bet they didn't order on time" etc. and quoting the T&C's over and over again)

Helen_from_yorkshire

I'm confused - how can this thread be [closed] but we can still continue to post here!!! Doesnt take much to confuse me, especially at this time of night.

Rex_Mundi

The TV offer is closed. Not the thread

newfunk

Helen_from_yorkshire wrote:

I'm confused - how can this thread be [closed] but we can still continue to post here!!! Doesnt take much to confuse me, especially at this time of night.

It would need to be locked for us not to post

Helen_from_yorkshire

Oh I see, thanks.

scrooge_mcduck_4

First of all let me say I don't think there is any chance we will be getting a tv out of this but...

whatever the t&c's say, they do not over-ride the law, so if the company is in breach of contract law the relevant t&c's become invalid.

However, realistically Argos/Homebase cannot afford to honour this error, and as several people have pointed out, prior to legal action the best we can probably hope for is some sort of good will gesture (i.e vouchers).

If someone did take legal action (which is unlikely as nobody is likely to consider it worthwhile), previous advice on a different pricing error from trading standards was that you would have to claim for a "loss of bargain". Effectively, you would have to buy the same tv/dvd recorder elsewhere, and then take Argos/Homebase to court for the difference.

All that said, it would be great to see someone take this all the way, as online shopping remains a grey area in the law as there are no real precedents. However, on the flipside, if a (hypothetical) court ruling went in favour of Argos/Homebase it would probably see the end of companies honouring any pricing errors in the future, which would be a worse situation than we currently have.

harryc_3

was wondering about the fact that even though they havent actually taken the money of my credit card as yet , though when i checked my online credit card statement today and it says transaction pending....

what it does do is prevent me having that money available to spend ..since my credit spending limit has been reduced by that amount ..

hence for a period of ..well until they cancel the order and my credit card company is told ...homebase from who I ordered the tv have in effect reduced my spending ability and as far as i am concerned surely that is in effect similar to accepting a payment.

ok I am chancing my arm but hey if you dont ask you never get ...was wondering what martin has to say about this whole affair

cheers

harryc

dadada

Quote:
Originally Posted by howalsh
I dont think I will get the TV, but for those worried about being charged full price - look back at earlier posts about T&C's.
As for ebay, I hate the fact that people use this site for money making rather than money saving & would appreciate if some one could attach the link about this being against the rules of the site (lost it myself).
Good luck those who want the TV for themselves, lets enjoy the ride!!!



" lol what rule? ? ? if you can make money at the companys expense then surely that is all part of screwing them back.... "

Big Companies "screw" consumers for profits = Bad
MSEers screw consumers for even bigger profit margins than the "Big Companies" = Good

?

Am I missing something here ?