Re: Cheap projector

["mark_harrison_uk1" <Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx>]

Ian,

Bear in mind I'm NOT a lawyer. My job requires me to know a bit of 
law, though, so here's my layman's understanding:


In this particular case, the terms and conditions say that the vendor 
may, at any time up till the moment he debits the Credit Card offered 
for payment, change the price. Obviously, the customer has the right 
to refuse the new price, and I'm guessing that most people today 
would ;-)

Even were that term not there, the vendor might decide not to honour 
the contract, and it would be down to the purchaser to take the 
matter to court to force the vendor to do so.

Were the courts to decide that a contract HAD been made on the 
strength of the automated reply, the vendor could furthermore only be 
required to honour the contract if the purchaser entered into the 
contract in "good faith", ie - believing that the price
advertised 
was genuine and not an honest offer or mistake.

The British legal system uses the principle of the "reasonable
man" 
to determine whether this was likely - ie would a reasonable man 
believe it was a genuine offer.

In the case of the Kodaks, most of the arguments centred around the 
fact that Kodak's advertising suggested this was a special offer, and 
that other digital cameras were available at around the offer price. 
Therefore it was reasonable to believe that a company such as Kodak 
had made the offer of a camera at that price, and the buyers had 
entered into the contract in good faith.

In the Argos TV's case, it was, AIUI, found that the "reasonable
man" 
would not have really believed that Argos was selling tellys for a 
tenner, and could reasonably have been expected to work out it was a 
typo. (ie - be treated as a typo in a mail-order catalogue.)

In this case, it is hard to believe that, in a page selling other 
items for 4-figure prices, this item was genuinely being offered at 
shippng-only cost.

Mark's prediction - no way would you get the projector for nowt. Any 
judge would laugh you out of court.


--- In ukha_d@y..., "Ian Lowe" <ian@w...> wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> Is there not also a distinction of having sent a confirmation of 
order?
> 
> So, having confirmed, the leqal position moves from offer of sale,
to
> payment offered, and on to offer accepted?
> 
> I doubt projectors FOC was ever a goer, just wondering?
> 
> Ian.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.