It really annoys me !!!!!

[GazMorris]

I ordered two items on-line this morning, one was GBP54.00+VAT and one GBP60.00+VAT the order went through and I received conformation only to take a call this afternoon telling me one of the items did not exist and would have to be specially ordered at an extra GBP140.00 I was not impressed.... as I need both of the items. Adding insult to injury they told me they thought they had under priced the item that was in stock and were well within their rights to charge more. I was doubly not impressed and would like to say I will never use them again, sadly it is one of the areas where I do not really have a choice.

Call UK trading standards as this sort of behaviour may be illegal and is certainly dubious. Depending on the Ts&Cs of the website, it may be that a legal contract has been concluded and they're on the hook for providing the goods at the price indicated.

Bottom line - name and shame!

Cheers,

Gaz

[Charlotte the flyer]

I'm not a legalist but I thought that displaying a price was just an 'invitation to treat' and that both sides had to agree before the contract was formed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/441740.stm

[Polchraine]

I'm not a legalist but I thought that displaying a price was just an 'invitation to treat' and that both sides had to agree before the contract was formed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/441740.stm

In most cases it is ... however there is advertising legislation that is supposed to stop false pricing.

[ovenpaa]

As much as I really do not like the company needs must when they are the only people in the UK that could at the time supply the item I needed.

[Blackknight1974]

I wouldn't spend £500+ on a gun without speaking to the dealer personally by phone first. I wouldn't buy a gun off of website by clicking "add to basket", I'd want to confirm the spec, availability etc by phone and e-mail before I got my credit card out.

I tend to use the same people time and again and would rather pay a little more for guaranteed service from someone I trust (and support small business) - than run the gauntlet and end up annoyed, frustrated, endlessly waiting etc

[Chuck]

Charlotte, you are correct. Goods on display and price is just an "invitation to treat". you and seller are free to accept or reject the bargain.

Deliberate mis-pricing is something else as I touched on already. Always make sure it's in stock, clicking add to basket is just mad.

As for

Depending on the Ts&Cs of the website, it may be that a legal contract has been concluded and they're on the hook for providing the goods at the price indicated

Nope, higher price is now a "counter offer" from the seller against the buyers original "offer" and can be rejected. original contract breached / frustrated due to non stock of goods, if price has gone up (as it does) can the seller control that, nope. He either takes the hit or passes it on. At £140 I don't see him taking a hit.

[GazMorris]

Nope, higher price is now a "counter offer" from the seller against the buyers original "offer" and can be rejected.

Actually, could be "yep" depending on the wording of the order confirmation and the Ts&Cs as I state, as this can be taken as acceptance of a contract depending on the wording. If the email received in the original example indicates acceptance of the offered price, then a contract is concluded. If the email indicates only confirmation of receipt of the order, then a contract has not been concluded unless specifically stated in the Terms and Conditions.

The formation of contracts in law breaks down into 3 parts:

1) Offer to treat - Seeing an item and a price on a website
2) Offer - Buyer makes an offer by placing an order
3) Acceptance - The seller indicates that they accept the offer

When it comes to eCommerce, it's the final one that is tricky. An email confirmation of receipt of the order does not indicate acceptance. Generally online sellers are advised to explicitly state when a contract has been concluded (i.e. accepted) in their Terms and Conditions.

Gaz

[Chuck]

Actually GazM, a contract breaks down into 5 parts, all of which constitute the essential elements of a valid contract. The 3 bits you mention are all part of the first item "Offer and Acceptance".

Offer and Acceptance - invitation to treat /offer to sell and offer to buy made.
Consensus et idem, of same mind. Paint your house, is that the building or a canvass portrait.
Capacity to contract, are both parties able to make the contract. EG cannot buy a gun without an FAC.
CONSIDERATION: some token of value that must pass between buyer and seller.
Legality of Object: legal purposes, contract to kill someone for example is not legal.

Consideration is any payment, however small. So a wrapper worth 0.0001pence can be used as "consideration" for contractual purposes! . Now making payment online would constitute such consideration. However the contract is now frustrated as it cannot be performed due to lack of aforementioned item. Dealer then says he can get one in, but at £140 more...up to buyer to accept or reject as original contract is broken. yes he can sue for specific performance, like shaving a pig, hard work for no real benefit.

If payment was NOT made then there's no contract.

Now, is this advert misrepresentation? if so what kind? Innocent as in he believed he had it in stock or fraudulent, knowing it was NOT in stock and hoping to get the £140 extra, even reckless, saying it was in stock with no care to truth of the statement. Yes you could take it to court, and lose way more than you might win.

Would not see any T&C that bound a dealer to sell at price shown when he is taking a hit.

Contract was to sell the item advertised which was NOT available. So, dealer then reneges on deal due to inability to perform contract at that time due to lack of item in stock, and makes counter offer which can be rejected. Would be hard to force sale at original price. Caveat Emptor and all that.

[GazMorris]

yes he can sue for specific performance, like shaving a pig, hard work for no real benefit..

I like how you buried this bit right in the middle of the legalese.

Gaz

[Chuck]

Oh I used to do that for a living mate. Some of my epistles to errant banks, HMRC and their lawyers were a masterpiece. Sort of legalised rants :lol: :lol:

A good one though eh