Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
We recently purchased an item from the Dixons web site using a discount voucher. The voucher reduced the item to a very low amount. The order was accepted and we where given a delivery date.
Two days later we recieved a anwser phone message saying that the order was cancelled and they would not honour it as there was a technical issue with the voucher code on the web site.
The T+C on the web site states:
Our Contract
You will have an opportunity to check and correct any input errors in your order up until you click the Submit Order button.
After you submit an order we will give you an Order Reference Number and details of the products you have ordered. We will send the same details to you in an e-mail (our first e-mail). We will then send a second email when we start to process your order. Please note that these e-mails are acknowledgements, not acceptance of your order.
Acceptance of your order and the creation of a legally binding contract between us will only occur when we send you a third e-mail, which will contain details of how your products will be delivered to you. (Alternatively, we may decline all or part of your order for any reason, in which case out third e-mail will tell you so)
We recieved this third email and have a sales invoice in PDF format.
Does anyone know what our legal position is on this issue?
It would look like (in their words) you have a 'legally binding contract'. Would point this out to them and that as they have entered into a contract to supply you goods at a given price they must do so.
I am not sure but there is an old english law known as "Offer to treat" and for example if you were to go into your local tresco or addsa or sinburys ( spelling error intentional) they are not bound to sell you the goods. SGH Law - Practice Areas - IT & E-Commerce - Articles
hsbc
Claim served on 13-08-2006
full refund .19-08-2006,
23-08-06 cheque arrived £580-deal.
capital one .
Filed claim against 16-08-2006 for £340.
Capital one 02-09-06 offer £383 refund to account.deal
Abbey Data Protection Act 4-07-06
issued court claim for £189 16-10-06
waitng for allocation nov21-11-06
Pleae make a donation to site, when you win-- I DID
I sent them a letter but some people have emailed. This is their repsonses:
1st Email
Dear **
Thank you for your recent e- mail to Peter Keenan. As you are aware, Dixons.co.uk was offering a Samsung LE40R73 television at a special promotional price of £1,070.99 using a discount code. The television was priced on the Dixons website at £1,399.99. We are, of course, happy to offer this television at the advertised promotional price, a saving of £328.
You will also be aware that a technical issue, which is currently under investigation, led to an incorrect price being placed in the order basket for this television after you had opted to order the television at the price of £1,070.99. This was an entirely unintended and unforeseen error and we regret that we are unable to offer the television for £1. This television was not advertised at £1 on either the Dixons website or any other official partner website.
I trust that you will understand that our promoted price for this product was entirely clear and that at no stage have we sought to mislead our customers. The £1 price shown on the basket page and in subsequent automated emails was obviously an error . I am happy to offer the television at the originally advised promotional price of £1,070.99 and will be happy to make the arrangements for the sale of this product on confirmation of your agreement within 48 hours.
Yours faithfully
Kelvin Fradley
Customer Support Manager
2ND EMAIL:
Dear Mr **
Thank you for your further email. We regret your disappointment with our position on this matter. We have already apologised by phone, but take this opportunity to do so again in writing,for any part we have played in the cause of that disappointment.
The figure of £1 was only generated following inappropriate use of the discount code. The only legitimate official publication of the discount code featured the promotional price of £1070.99 and clear instructions on how the code must be used. Those instructions were circumvented.
Dixons.co.uk has not acted in bad faith nor has it failed to meet any reasonable expectation.
The offer to provide the television for £1070.99 remains open. If you do not wish to purchase the item at that price then I regret that we are unable to offer any further assistance.
Your right... until they take your money.. After they take your money. They are entering into a contract to supply the goods at that price.
No they are not, sadly you are mistaken.
Shop pricing is an "invitation to treat" – a concept which was established in the 1950's case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Limited. For a binding contract to exist, there must be an offer, a consequential acceptance, consideration for the deal and an intention to create legal relations.
You may argue that this has been accomplished, however in this instance, there was an obvious mistake in the price.
The precedent on this issue was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the persons making it, and must have known it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller.
This would therefore give Dixons a defence if the price of the product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed, as I think you will have to agree has happened in this case.
Therefore it is on this point which Dixons have a particularly strong argument.
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
However. It is quite common for retailers to sell discontinued stock at unbelievebly low prices.
The company I work for frequently sell's stock at 1p.
This is a reasonable assumption in this case.
A brand new 40" Digital LCD HDTV for £1 is simply not credible let alone reasonable.
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
Guys, you aint gonna get any judge find in favour of you as it's not a creditable offer. Also where did you get the code from? The majority of discount codes on the internet are obtained illegally which could leave you open to a fraud challenge!
The code was on a kelkoo, price-runner type site and had been active for at least three weeks before (reducing the price by around £300). Then monday morning it dropped the price to £1 at the checkout.
To answer your questions with regards to the court location, the easiest (and most convenient) location to file a claim is with the county court nearest to where you live - it means your creditor will be inconvenienced with the travelling to and from court - however, it could be transferred to another court if it is deemed too complex or needs special consideration. In some cases (a very recent one involving an angry bank customer and Lloyds TSB) was transferred to the Chancery Court in London, so it could depend on your case.
With regards to the matter of Dixon's honouring their claim, it is true that the Boots High Street chemist set the ruling that goods advertised are an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell, and so a contract is not executed until the money is given to the offeror. However, it is correct that one of the criteria for creating a valid and legally enforceable contract is one of that to 'intend to create a legal obligation', which I might argue Dixon's were doing - in fact, a valid contract must have 'consideration', and one of the requirements for this to be valid is that is might not be of adequate value.
In the case of Thomas vs Thomas (1842), Mr Thomas died and expressed in his will the provision that if he died before his wife, she will have use of the house for as long as she wanted for the rental sum of £1 a year. However, the executors of the will were the late Mr Thomas' brothers, and when one died, the other threw her out and it all ended up in court, basically because he said the sum of £1 a year was ludicrously low and did not bear any resemblance to the true value of the real rental figure. The judge held that it did not matter the sum, as long as it was real (i.e. was of some value) and that the courts will enforce legal contracts regardless of whether the value is correct.
So you could take Dixon's to court, as long as they took money from you! (In theory!)
imo you are having a laugh. it is quite obvious you are trying to get something for nothing, surely it is obvious from the start that ths is a mistake, and to attempt to pursue this through the courts in my opinion is pathetic. maybe we wouldn't be 'rip off britain' if people weren't trying to [problem] everything! all you do is push the price up for everyone else.
Hi,
I know a little about pricing law as I work for Currys which ownes Dixon's. No if a price is advertised in a shop legally they don't have to sell it at that price but if the transaction has gone through it is a legally binding contract. I don't know if the same applys online but this is true in shops.
Mistake is a vitiating factor in contract law. This means that the contract can be repudiated if the mistake is obvious. Which, in my opinion, this is.
I agree that prices are an invitation to treat until a contract is made; in this case a contract was made; but because there has been an obvious pricing mistake this can be classed as a vitiating factor and it's likely that you won't be able to hold them to this.
Just as Hagen said
Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.
Legal Query
Reply With Quote
but there is an old english law known as "Offer to treat" and for example if you were to go into your local tresco or addsa or sinburys ( spelling error intentional) they are not bound to sell you the goods.
Originally Posted by asa_carter
