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

Dave=m55

BritBrat wrote:

But I thought yesterday it was £350 not £400+?

Are they making it that price so it fits the excuse?

No, cos I looked at the wrong item. Mistakes happen especially when you're in a rush.

Doesn't detract from the fact that no-one will get this.

Dave=m55

Poppy9 wrote:

but if they take money from someones bank account, which they initiate, then they have accepted and received consideration (unfair or unequal though it is - to them ).

This implies acceptance of the terms of the contract.

But there was NEVER a contract. "the contract is usually void ab initio", from the beginning. They cannot 'imply acceptance of the terms of the contract' as the contract was void. All the company has to do is set things to rights, (refund the money taken).
Everyone states this was a pricing error. If you feel that this is worth pursueing in a court of law, go ahead. Unlike the kodak offer, where you stood a good chance of winning, on this one you WILL lose (IMO).
If you are prepared to go to court and swear that you though this was the real intention of the retailer to advertise a tv combi for 49p, then I don't think you would win.

Zaphod_Beblebrocks

did you join today just to put people right on this?

arv2k

not looking thre w all the thread but have people seen this?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005400062,00.html

Poppycat

From The Sun "But thousands of people who had orders confirmed were later sent emails saying they will get nothing.2

No emails yet. Order confirmed, money taken by debit card=cash

rchddap1

Patience folks...I'm sure we'll get our 'go and get lost' emails shortly.

Poppy9

Out-law

Refers to Kodak and previous Argos error.

If any MSE who have 'bought' this TV had the financial clout to sue we might see a favourable judgement. The problem is unless TS take on the case then it's unlikely that the case will be tested in law. This is being treated differently just because its distance selling. If you went into a shop and bought a TV for 49p because that's what it scanned up for at the till once you have handed over your money and they have accepted it and put it in the till ownership of the goods transfer to you and you are free to leave the shops with the goods at that price. It is only an invitation to treat while the goods are on display. Once they accept the money for it the contract is made.

What would be the case if you 'bought" 300 of these TV's at 49p via a credit card. If the credit card has been debited and you were then not supplied the goods could you sue the CC company for specific performance?

Dave=m55

Zaphod_Beblebrocks wrote:

did you join today just to put people right on this?

yes. Cos it really gets on my goat the money for nothing culture attitude nowadays. I have seen so many misprices and people always come up with the moneys been taken out of my account, there must be a contract arguement. There is still no legal precidence for this arguement with regard to Internet sales, and the case most quoted comes for 1939!

Kodak was a different matter altogether, sometimes the companies that get hit by this sort of vulture attitude are small shops who end up spending weeks sorted this sort of thing out. Recent tent for £0 fiasco springs to mind where a very small shop was hit.

Whether I am right or not, its never been tested in a court of law, but using a bit of common sense, you can see this one would fail. 49p for a tv combi, not a chance.

Do I work for homebase/argos. No, I work in the public sector in IT. (where I'm not at work today :-).

Zaphod_Beblebrocks

Well whether you are right or wrong it is up to the individual how they persue this or not,I am sure many have legal expenses insurance on their home contents policy and can verify the legal position via this with a qualified person,it would be great if this was cleared up once and for all I'm sure as an IT person Argos need/should have had somthing in place to stop the orders once stock was exhausted.

Dave=m55

Poppy9 wrote:

Out-law

If any MSE who have 'bought' this TV had the financial clout to sue we might see a favourable judgement.

Doubtful for the reasons already stated. If the tvs had been delivered then that would open up a whole new kettle of fish. Something I'm not even going to start to look into.