Bought 3 items from John Lewis very cheap - now they want me to pay the 'right price' stating a website error - or it's Debt Collectors time! **RESOLVED**

[vbnmu]

Hi All,

I bought 3 items from JL online a few weeks ago that were advertised at a very good price. One of those was cancelled and the other 2 were delivered.

John Lewis have since called me, stating that the advertised price was incorrect, and the items should have been 7 x more expensive. They want me to pay for the items or return them. I refused to pay as I just cannot afford that, I have also sold one to a mate (not at a profit). Am happy to return one, but that doesn't make up for the 2nd item.

They're threatening me with debt collection if I don't pay up.

Where do I stand with this one?

Thank you.

[BazzaS]

Their error.

depending on their T’s & C’s, there were a few points at which the contract became ‘crystallised”. The default (offer, acceptance, presence of consideration, with legal ability and intent to create a contract) is when there is acceptance by payment, BUT their T’s and C’s might make it e.g. on despatch of the goods.

Reply, saying your understanding is that a contract was formed, and was completed (potentially prior to the goods being delivered) but certainly at/by the goods being both delivered and paid for, and they can’t retrospectively impose a new contract, let alone try to do so unilaterally.

 

Else, any supplier could decide after the event to ask for extra money!

Edited July 19, 2023 by BazzaS

[vbnmu]

Thanks @BazzaS - while I don't think I did anything wrong, this is stressing me out. I emailed the CEO this morning, but I'll drop their customer service an email now.

When I was talking to the returns and refunds team, the person was messaging someone else, and getting live response which she was relaying to me. Could that potentially be their para-legal?

Which then makes me wonder if they actually have any grounds, why else would they come up with something like that!

Edited July 19, 2023 by vbnmu

[BazzaS]

Trying it on in case you fold.

[Homer67]

In legal terms the Principle of Estoppel applies.

[BazzaS]

Which estoppel? Proprietary??

I don’t even think it is proprietary estoppel. I think it is just “there was a binding contract”

[dx100uk]

and stop being scared of a DCA...

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT it's type.

pers id simply ignore everyone now.

too late mate. !!

 

dx

 

[vbnmu]

Following my email to the CEO, I got a call from a Customer Relationship Manager - basically they've dropped the case but in future reserve the right to request outstanding funds or the goods in case of discrepancies, even though this is not highlighted on their T&C. The T&C say a contract is established when they've despatched the item.

Very unpleasant person, but I was not in a mood to argue.

I wouldn't say I was scared, especially after reading their T&Cs, but it was unnecessary stress.

Thanks @BazzaS & @dx100uk for your help.

Edited July 19, 2023 by vbnmu

[dx100uk]

T&C's are not totally legally binding and can be questioned

hence millions got PPI back and before that unlawful bank penalty charges.

well done.

there really was nothing they could do ...too late mate..!!

dx

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

5 hours ago, BazzaS said:

Which estoppel? Proprietary??

I don’t even think it is proprietary estoppel. I think it is just “there was a binding contract”

yes, it was simply a binding contract – but had it been estoppel it would have been promissory estoppel.

And I think we are all curious to know what it was and how much you got it for and what was the correct price.

Once again, don't be fazed by these people. Once the item has been selected and dispatched to you, it is a binding contract. They had no right to go after you like this.

Don't worry and if you hear anything more please let us know.

So what was it?