Purchased an item on a website for nothing!

[carltheplasterer]

Hi all,

i recently purchased an item on a website that was advertised for £0.00 nothing!

I only payed for the postage cost.

The website has now sent me an e-mail saying there was a mistake.

Here are there exact words:

 

"However, this is a brand new product we only put on yesterday and my colleague who put it on had put the price in wrong place on the system so it did not show on the website.

If you would still like these fittings, we will have to charge you the full price of £171.00 each inc VAT.

Sorry for any misleading information".

Ok,fair enough but the way i see it is that's not my problem the mistake was made by them i purchased the item at the stated price money has changed hands & the transaction is complete as far as i'm concerned.

What are my rights (if any) on this?

I always thought if an item was advertised at a stated price,they have to honour it mistake or not,especially now that i have actually "paid" for the item.

Any help & advice would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

[Michael Browne]

Most websites will include in their T&C's something along the lines that they can decline an order for any reason right up to the point of shipment.

 

I think you'll struggle to make any headway with this one.

[ashmk]

I agree with MB.

 

It would be nice to follow this through but in reality you will just waste your own time chasing this up.

It works well in stores if you pay for it and then they realise they can do nothing as you own the product but online is quite often untill they actually ship it they have not agreed anything with you.

 

I would put it down to experience and move on.

[blitz]

It would be seen as offer to purchase at that price up until shipment in which it has been accepted. Most online companies do not accept an offer during payment and as such you won't get anywhere imo.

 

Same as in a shop, they are not obligated to sell it at the displayed price. If it sounds to good to be true.. it usually is

[butty_a]

I thought that once they have taken the money, in this case only the postage, then they have accepted the deal. Hence why Amazon, Asda etc dont take the money anymore until an order is dispatched.

[geoff1248]

I feel sure that this comes under the offer and acceptance part of the law of contract.

You have made an offer to buy at the advertised price and they are deemed to have accepted your offer once they have taken payment. Contract completed.

Now there may well be something about "error and omissions excepted" in their T&C you would need to read their T&C.

[geoff1248]

I feel sure that this comes under the offer and acceptance part of the law of contract.

You have made an offer to buy at the advertised price and they are deemed to have accepted your offer once they have taken payment. Contract completed.

Now there may well be something about "error and omissions excepted" in their T&C you would need to read their T&C.

[ClampingKing]

E&OE.

 

You won't be getting the item at that price. You will get your refund of the postage.

[perplexity]

When goods are advertised for sale at a price, it works the other way, it is the buyer who accepts the offer made by the supplier, and in principle the contract is thus enforceable; the contract is concluded when the buyer pays and it is thus a consumer contract.

 

For the buyer to be deemed to have made the offer, the buyer would have had to specify his own particular price for the seller to agree to accept, which is what happens at a public auction for instance, where the broker thus relieved of many of the responsibilities that apply to a consumer sale.

 

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 thus apply, whereby Schedule 2 defines this as an unfair term:

 

(l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

An action against the supplier would therefore depend on whether or not the seller informed the buyer of the right to cancel the contract, before the contract was concluded.

[MrShed]

I disagree with the above posters.

 

For a contract to be legally binding, and accepted, both parties have to bring something to the contract.

 

In this case, this hasnt happened, so irrespective of the terms, there is no contract in place.

[perplexity]

The buyer paid the postage cost. That's a consideration, but if it was fairly obvious that the £0.00 price could not have been intended, that's a valid argument.

 

It depends on the circumstance. Before they increased the minimum start price it was not so unusual for goods to be sold on eBay for next to nothing for want of a second bid.

[kiptower]

another disgruntled buyer from ebay

[MrShed]

The buyer paid the postage cost. That's a consideration, but if it was fairly obvious that the £0.00 price could not have been intended, that's a valid argument.

 

It depends on the circumstance. Before they increased the minimum start price it was not so unusual for goods to be sold on eBay for next to nothing for want of a second bid.

 

Theres a difference between "next to nothing" and "nothing".

 

The buyer paid the postage cost which has nothing to do with the contract of purchasing the item, it is a seperate service.

[perplexity]

When an item is purchased online the usual practice is to pay once, to thus conclude a contract, not twice for the same item to be delivered, and the Sale of Goods Act treats the delivery of goods as a part of the contract of sale, not as a separate service.

 

With regard to eBay the point to appreciate is then that dodgy sellers sell at an artificially low price, expecting to make their profit by inflating the postage charge, to avoid the fee to pay to eBay, a percentage of the end price.

 

It is not therefore quite so simple. If a seller's idea was to sell for £0.00, as a gimmick to seek publicity, with the intention to renege on any purchase thus attempted, should he be allowed to do so?

 

If a seller's idea was to attract the attention of a buyer in order to eventually embarrass the buyer, to persuade the buyer that he ought to pay the full whack, should that be allowed? Certainly not. The seller should be informing the buyer that the buyer owns the right to cancel the contract, not vise versa.

[MrShed]

If the price is zero, there is no binding contract established, as the buyer has brought nothing to the contract. Simple as that.

[Bookworm]

If Carl were to name the site, it will be easy to ascertain whether they had set their T&Cs to conclude the contract at point of despatch, which is highly likely. If that's the case, recourse is nil.

 

Historically, internet online mistakes have been generally accepted as being genuine and thus upheld in favour of the retailer. In this instance, no-one is going to believe that they were giving £171 stuff away for nothing, unless it were to be shown as a give-away promo for buying something else, in case it would have shown quite clearly surely.

 

Personally, I think chances of getting anywhere with this are a big fat nothing.

[perplexity]

It's a peculiar fact that it is possible to offer an item with a £0.00 price tag, to start with.

 

I would not have thought of this as an event that anybody involved would wish to allow unless a circumstance could indeed arise where it would make sense.

 

It is otherwise a trivial task in terms of programming an online form, to entirely prevent the possibility.