[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: NOT A Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for £100
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: NOT A Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for £100
- From: "musashi1977uk" <musashi1977uk@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:35:08 -0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Actually I thought the ruling on the Argos case was that individuals=20
who had ordered single TV's had their orders honoured as they=20
honestly believed that the price was a genuine bargain and thus the=20
contract was entered into without malace or deception, whereas the=20
people who ordered multiple TV's did NOT get their orders honoured as=20
the contract was entered into on the grounds of deception and thus=20
made the contracts void.
In this case the vendor has made an invitation to treat (the advert)=20
and by sending credit card details is an offer to purchase and=20
Kodak's issuing of a reciept is a contract of sale, therefore as long=20
as we believe that the sale price was genuine and not a=20
misrepresentation, I believe our original contract with the vendor=20
stands
Simon Rafferty
--- In ukha_d@y..., "White, Peter" <peter.white@b...>
wrote:
> IIRC Argos had something similar a year or so ago, that was widely
> publicised and covered by Watchdog. I think it was for a colour=20
telly at
> =A319.99 instead of =A3199.99. Needless to say, they did not
honour=20
any orders.
> this was however only on the site for a few hours, whereas Kodak=20
have left
> it up there all weekend. Presumably their web team doesn't work=20
weekends
> (or monday's before 10!)
>=20
> Pete
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIME:mark@a... at INTERNET
> To: White, Peter; ukha_d@y... at Internet
> Sent: 07/01/02 10:35
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] NOT A Bargain] Kodak 3.1 Mp camera for =A3100
>=20
> Grabbed a copy of the site just before it was changed...
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/images/temp/kodak.jpg
>=20
> I have the HTML too.
>=20
> Any "legal" people on this list? My experience of these
things -=20
like
> with=20
> ISPs - leads me to think they have a "get-out" clause for
this sort=20
of
> thing.=20
> Seem to remember "invitation to treat" as well - basically
I can=20
put=20
> something in my window for sale at 1p but I don;t have to sell it=20
to you
> at=20
> that.
> Another one for the "UKHA Legal Team"?? ;-)
>=20
> <<ALTERNATIVE.HTM>> <<ENVELOPE.TXT>>
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|