Legal Advice: Online Order

xb8browney · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:49

Hi,

Today I was pricing up a system and came across a typo on a site for some Ocz Dual Channel 2 GB (2 x 1 GB) PC2-6400 DDR2 800 CL4 OCZ2FX800C42GK it was priced at £1.50 :eek:

I left it an hour and thought they would correct it so they didn’t (cant mention site as there a competitor) so after an hour I decide to buy it, when I was going through the checkout I noticed pay pal so I bought the item and left it another hour before buying...Still no price change or e-mail so I paid for the item incl post.

Now I know tomorrow I will get an e-mail saying there was an error but were do I stand?

I placed the order at 15:25 and got an e-mail at 15:42 saying

"Your order has been processed successfully"
My order is currently in "Processed" status

J1234 · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:50

I think they have the right to cancel it if it was a typo, it may say in the terms and conditions.

xb8browney · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:52

I did have a quick read over it but couldn't see any thing.

Maybe they can come to a deal as I want to buy a CPU and motherboard off them within the week

Mr Joshua · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:55

I've wondered about this because (from what I remember) people said they don't have to honour it if money hasn't left your account.

The Pat · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:55

I've heard if they have taken the money off you they have to honour it. By no means is that definite though.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:56

You can chase them but they have no obligations to fulfill your order, the retailer in this instance has the law on their side. It is clearly a mistake, not just a layman's term but also legal term. The court will simply see that it is a mistake (Where you prob sue for Misrepresentation) and will rule on their side. And at the end it will declare the contract void, so just call this unlucky on your part.

Besides they can always say it is out of stock and drags this out for years. And contract isn't formed in most online transactions until the good are shipped or at least money has been taken. That should be in any good T&C.

xb8browney · 25 Jun 2007 at 21:59

Well I'll see what they say tomorrow and actually I see errors on there site every day although they are quite a big online seller.

Does THIS have any relevance

Raymond Lin · 25 Jun 2007 at 22:04

Invitation to treat is the corner stone to retail transactions, the £1.50 listed is just an invite for you to make an offer, no more, they can just say no to it.

Explicit · 25 Jun 2007 at 22:57

xb8browney said:
Does THIS have any relevance

That is exactly the article that was in my mind when I was reading your post.

An offer to sell must be distinguished from an invitation to treat.

In legal terms, the analysis is as follows. Your order constitutes an offer to buy the goods from the seller. As such, it is up to the seller to decide whether they wish to accept your offer to buy the goods. This is known as an invitation to treat.

The contract is only formed when the seller accepts your offer, not when you place your order. In this type of situation, the strongest evidence of acceptance is processing of payment. It is arguable that the seller has not accepted your offer because they have not taken payment from you.

Raymond is right, the law will favour the seller in this situation. Even if the contract has been formed, it is likely to be void for mistake as to the terms of the contract (i.e. price). I doubt you would have a claim for misrepresentation because you have not been induced to enter the contract on the basis of a false statement of fact.

Also, the seller will normally have a get-out clause in the terms and conditions.

In conclusion, your legal position is very weak.

jas72 · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:00

Explicit said:
That is exactly the article that was in my mind when I was reading your post.

An offer to sell must be distinguished from an invitation to treat.

In legal terms, the analysis is as follows. Your order constitutes an offer to buy the goods from the seller. As such, it is up to the seller to decide whether they wish to accept your offer to buy the goods. This is known as an invitation to treat.

The contract is only formed when the seller accepts your offer, not when you place your order. In this type of situation, the strongest evidence of acceptance is processing of payment. It is arguable that the seller has not accepted your offer because they have not taken payment from you.

Raymond is right, the law will favour the seller in this situation. Even if the contract has been formed, it is likely to be void for mistake as to the terms of the contract (i.e. price). I doubt you would have a claim for misrepresentation because you have not been induced to enter the contract on the basis of a false statement of fact.

Also, the seller will normally have a get-out clause in the terms and conditions.

In conclusion, your legal position is very weak.

Such a thing as false advertising?

If ryanair advertised cheap deals yet said it was a "mistake" afterwards there would be newsprint about it and the ombudsman would be involved.

Walkerie · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:02

in supermarkets atleast the price shown on product/shelf with correct model number/etc has to be honoured.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:06

jas72 said:
Such a thing as false advertising?

If ryanair advertised cheap deals yet said it was a "mistake" afterwards there would be newsprint about it and the ombudsman would be involved.

Except this was never advertise as a "special offer" or Cheap deals, it was simple a price for a product that should've been 50 or 100 times its listed price.

As for False advertising (where like 90% of people automatically think it is soon as they see the price is wrong), that's when you advertise for a hamburger and then getting a veggie burger that looks like a hamburger when in fact its not. The product in the sale is still the same product, unless they sent you a different ram (e.g. slower), that is call false advertisement.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:08

WalkeruK said:
in supermarkets atleast the price shown on product/shelf with correct model number/etc has to be honoured.

No they don't. As in Fisher vs Bell [1961] and Pharmaceutical Society of GB vs Boots Cash Chemists [1953].

They only do as a gesture of good will and to avoid the bad PR.

Explicit · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:13

jas72 said:
Such a thing as false advertising?

If ryanair advertised cheap deals yet said it was a "mistake" afterwards there would be newsprint about it and the ombudsman would be involved.

There is significant difference between false advertising and a genuinely innocent pricing error.

In the Ryanair example, there is clearly an intention to deceive a significant number of the members of public. When a retailer makes a genuine error as to price, there is no intention to deceive the public. Humans can and do make unintentional mistakes.

This situation is very different to the Ryanair example, and the court will probably strike out any claim for false advertising. In this were not the case, retailers would be unduly burdened if they made a pricing error. Commercial practice would become impossible. The courts are strongly against any such burden. The whole purpose of the courts inventing the 'invitation to treat' was to avoid this type of situation. That would be defeated by allowing a claim for false advertising.

Cookie-Monster · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:18

yay, if I had a quid for every time i see someone quote fisher and bell....

I only did one term of law as part of an economics degree and have it etched in my memory

rule of thumb

Online Retailers if goods have been dispatched then they usually deemed to have accepted your offer (e.g. left the warehouse not just status changed to dispatched)

Retail Stores, passing through the till and the acceptance of cash (consideration) then they are deemed to have accepted your offer

neither of these are necessarily hard/fast rules, but a good general idea.

Raymond Lin · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:20

Cookie-Monster said:
yay, if I had a quid for every time i see someone quote fisher and bell....

lol, that is almost as famous as Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co for Tort, or Re Ellenborough Park [1956] in Land Law.

Duff-Man · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:23

It depends on the specifics of their terms and conditions.

I had a similar situation with another competitor, back when the 9800pro was the top of the line card. They had priced the card at £130, and at the time they were retailing for around £280.

Anyway, in the end we all got the card for £130. Their wording in the terms and conditions implied that their confirmation email consituted acceptance of the offer.

Explicit · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:25

Duff-Man said:
Their wording in the terms and conditions implied that their confirmation email consituted acceptance of the offer.

They must have hired a really crap lawyer if they drafted a clause like that

Golden rule, stick in a get-out clause

Cookie-Monster · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:25

I definately remember Carlill, didnt do land law, only contract/business

Duff-Man · 25 Jun 2007 at 23:33

Explicit said:
They must have hired a really crap lawyer if they drafted a clause like that

Golden rule, stick in a get-out clause

It didn't help that they sent the same mistaken price to a print-ad in PC zone

We used that to show that it wasn't a 'clear and obvious' mistake, as their own people had failed to spot it prior to sending off the ad.