Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Samsung Order Cancelled due to pricing error - Breach of contract?


mrdonj
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 939 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, quite annoyed about an order I placed for a Samsung phone on their site being cancelled the same day it was due to be delivered

 

Just wanted to know if them sending me a dispatch confirmation and then not delivering the product due to a pricing error was within the terms of the contract formed when they sent dispatch confirmation. The below text is from their website

 

"1. Your order is an offer to us to buy the Product(s) in your order. You are deemed to have placed an order with us by ordering via our online checkout process. After placing an order, you will receive an e-mail from us acknowledging that we have received your order and containing an Order Reference Number and details of the Product(s) you have ordered (Order Confirmation). Please note that the Order Confirmation is acknowledgment that we have received your order and does not mean your order has been accepted by us. All orders are subject to our acceptance of your offer to buy the Product(s) ordered. We will only accept your offer (and form the contract of sale) when we send you an e-mail confirming that the Product has been dispatched (Dispatch Confirmation). We may refuse to accept your order:

(a) where the Product is not available;
(b) where we cannot obtain authorisation for your payment;
(c) if there has been a pricing or Product description error (see ‘Price and Payment’ below); or
(d) if you do not meet the eligibility criteria set out in ‘Your Status’ above.

2. The contract between us (Contract) will only be formed upon the earlier of i) when we send you the Dispatch Confirmation or ii) delivery of the Product(s). The parties to the Contract are you and Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited.

3. The Contract will relate only to those Products in respect of which we have confirmed dispatch in the Dispatch Confirmation. We will not be obliged to supply any other Products which may have been part of your order until the dispatch of such Products has been confirmed in a separate Dispatch Confirmation."

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more detail please.

It's quite common for companies to say that there is no contract until the item in question has been selected for dispatch.

That seems to be what they are saying here.

What kind of confirmation did they send you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I ordered on the 31st October - Money was taken immediately and cleared on 3rd November

 

Item was sitting on Preparing for dispatch for a few days. They later updated the order tracking page with an IMEI number for the specific device

 

Order status changed to dispatched on the 9th (yesterday). 

 

I received two different dispatch notices telling me the phone would be delivered on the 10th. One is a joint notice from DPD and Samsung and the other is a notice from Samsung's own tracking site

 

DPDs own tracking shows the delivery details were sent to DPD at 3pm on the 9th and that they received the phone from Samsung at 1am on the 10th

 

They recalled the order at 6am after DPD had the phone in their local hub nearest to me

 

Spoke to them on the phone, they said I cancelled it (not true) then stated they'd escalate it further to see what happened.

 

They replied that it was a pricing error and have asked for the phone to be returned to them by DPD

 

 

 

Information from DPD app

 

docs1.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
pdfs merged
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay it looks as if you are in a very good position.

Who is the dealer? How much money we talking about? How much did you pay and what was the correct price?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dealer is Samsung UK - Purchased directly from their website using student discount that was active at the time

 

Total price was £744 including delivery

 

Retail price without any discounts from their site is £1,199

 

Current student discount price is £1,079

 

Prices were lower because they were doing deals for "Samsung Week"

 

Just had a response from Samsung as well stating that they do not need to sell the product to me at the lower price because the pricing error is "obvious and unmistakeable" and could have been recognised by me, but there is nothing to suggest that I should know that a discount is unmistakeable. The phone is still a good part over £700 and seemed to be that price for a limited time only

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do the maths for me please – you are out of pocket by how much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment £744.03

 

They said I'd be refunded within 3-5 working days

 

If I were to re-order at the actual price they want for the phone with student discount, I'd need to pay an extra £335

Edited by mrdonj
Link to post
Share on other sites

So after you get refunded – which I'm sure you will – you will be out of pocket £335 – correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK well that is what you need to sue them for in order to enforce the contract.

If you're interested in this then start reading up on the steps involved taking a small claim in the county court.

 

It is straightforward but it is worth knowing the steps in advance

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is about self empowerment. You should read around enough to know the answers to these questions and you have been here since 2015.

We will help you – but we need to feel that you are invested as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key here (other than the self-help BF alludes to!) is that they took your miney

(assuming they did actually take it and you can show this on a bank or credit card statement).

 

You are then in a strong position to argue they accepted the consideration (money in this situation), causing the contract to become crystallised.

 

You are n much less certain ground if the payment was showing as “pending” rather than actually taken.

 

Keep screenshots / records of all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I disagree that the money needs to have been taken. By their own terms, they need only have identified the item for dispatch and at that point the contract is made. They are entitled to sue for the money – and you are entitled to sue for the item.

The transfer of the money becomes a formality. Of course it is helpful to show that the money has been paid – but it isn't essential

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mrdonj said:

....We may refuse to accept your order:

(a) where the Product is not available;
(b) where we cannot obtain authorisation for your payment;
(c) if there has been a pricing or Product description error (see ‘Price and Payment’ below); or
(d) if you do not meet the eligibility criteria set out in ‘Your Status’ above.

 

You need to read the 'Price and Payment' section of their T&C too - it's where they are quoting "obvious and unmistakeable" error from [my bold]:

 

  • Price and payment

    1. The price of the Products will be as quoted on our website from time to time, except in cases of obvious error. Product prices include VAT at the prevailing rate. The price quoted on our website for Products excludes delivery charges which are quoted separately on our website.

    2. Product prices and delivery charges are subject to change at any time, but changes will not affect orders in respect of which we have already sent you a Dispatch Confirmation.

    3. Our website contains a large number of Products and it is always possible that, despite our best efforts, some of the Products listed on our website may be incorrectly priced. We will normally verify prices as part of our dispatch procedures so that, where a Product's correct price is less than our stated price, we will charge the lower amount when dispatching the Product to you. If a Product's correct price is higher than the price stated on our website, we will normally, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before dispatching the Product, or reject your order and notify you that we are rejecting it. If the pricing error is obvious and unmistakeable and could have reasonably been recognised by you as an error, we do not have to provide the Products to you at the incorrect (lower) price.

    4. Payment for all Products must be made either by credit or debit card or by PayPal and is collected on our behalf by Worldpay. We accept payment by Visa Debit, Visa Credit, Mastercard, American Express, Maestro and PayPal. A payment by credit or debit card will only be charged at or shortly after the time you place your order.


    5. Price discounts and promotions are not stackable: Multiple promotional discounts cannot be applied together onto one product. In the event that more than one discount can be applied to a single product, the customer will receive the one discount offer with the highest value.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we need to see the ad

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I see that there was quite a lot of publicity about Samsung week. Both on the Samsung site 

WWW.SAMSUNG.COM

The official page for Life Unstoppable. Take an immersive tour into our house of surprises and discover our uniquely innovative Samsung products.

And also in the newspapers.

Start getting screenshots of everything you can which rambles on about prices being/, extraordinary surprises – anything.

Clearly Samsung have been hyping it up. Samsung are talking about "amazing offers". I don't find that a reduction of about £100 is especially amazing.

I would have thought that it wouldn't be too difficult to find sufficient publicity and wild claims to support your argument that although the discount was substantial, it simply amounted to "amazing" and a retail price which had been "slashed".

The Samsung week was apparently tied into black Friday and intended to pre-empt black Friday.

Get yourself a good half a dozen or so sources. Get the screenshots and link us to them and then we'll give you our view as to whether it's worth a punt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll definitely do some reading to self-help

 

Money was taken and has been with them since 3rd November, not pending

 

"If the pricing error is obvious and unmistakeable and could have reasonably been recognised by you as an error, we do not have to provide the Products to you at the incorrect (lower) price"

 

This is where I intend to fight my case. I don't see anywhere on the website to suggest that the pricing is abnormal. I don't have my own screenshots but there are some from HotDeals that I can show 

 

 

 

 

docs2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well start getting your own screenshots. You will be amazed how quickly these things disappear once it's all over.

It's up to you to gather evidence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrating that a lot of samsung week pages simply link back to the current UK offers page. Cached google doesn't bring much up either. I do have a few screenshots I've collected though. Will spend a bit more time looking and then put some images in here

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also usefully do some research online for law sites that discuss when a retailer can cancel a contract because of pricing errors. 

 

A quick search bought this one up, as an example.

 

 

Although it's advising sellers rather than customers (and is some 10 years old) the examples they cite are interesting because in all of them the price at which the product was offered was a tiny fraction of the price it should have been - a £349 TV for 49 pence, a £250 computer for £7, etc.

 

I have no legal qualifications but my instinct is that Samsung will struggle in court to show that a product that was advertised at a discount of 30% off its normal price (£744 -vs- £1,079) is a pricing error that is "obvious and unmistakeable and could have reasonably been recognised by you as an error".

 

30% discounts in online sales promotions are commonplace. You could not, in my opinion, reasonably have been expected to recognise it as an error.

 

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I've rustled up so far. A couple aren't from the UK but figured it would highlight that Samsung Week was a global thing

 

Don't know if it will do any good, but would bringing up the fact that Dell honoured a price error just a few days ago because they marked the items for dispatch be worthwhile?

docs3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reasoning of my site team colleague @Ethel Street is spot on. Use this as the basis of your argument supported by the evidence that you are discovering on the Internet

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrdonj said:

Don't know if it will do any good, but would bringing up the fact that Dell honoured a price error just a few days ago because they marked the items for dispatch?

No

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other research you could do is see if you can find listings of both (a) all Samsung phones crrently on sale and (b) all Android phones from all manufacturers currently on sale, ranked in price order, highest to lowest.

 

The reason I suggest that is because having recently bought an Android phone myself I know that even the supposedly error price of £744 is still a very expensive Android phone. My guess is that £744 would still put it in the top 25% most expensive Android phones currently on the market. See if you can find some data to support my guess. 

 

That would be another bit of evidence to put before a judge to show it's unreasonable for you to recognise a phone priced at £744 as "an obvious and unmistakeable error".

 

Frankly they are trying it on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...