Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics
According to Citizens Advice:
"If you have a contract, the company can’t usually cancel your order, even if they realise they’ve sold you something at the wrong price. They’ll only be able to cancel it if it was a genuine and honest mistake on their part that you should’ve noticed."
I believe both Mr. Tommo and Mr. Sam HAD a contract...
|
Ooh, contract law
Correct Algae, a valid contract requires only three elements. Offer, acceptance and consideration.
1) The offer had been made to the whole world (Carlill vs Carbolic smoke ball Company. (1893))
There was actually scope here to back away from the deal as an advertised price is not an offer but an invitation the treat (The Boots case (1952)). Simply advertising something at a price may invites offers but is not an offer in itself.
2) Acceptance of the deal was communicated. (Felthouse v Brindley (1862)).
3) Consideration was received for the goods.
Now, in this instance the latter seems to be the key element in that the vendor sold something at less thatn they were allowed to sell it for. This is something that the likes of Jinsan hold vendors to in that they have a deminimus price that a vendor may not go below. Thats normal industry practice to maintain a quality image.
However, once payment is made the contract with the vendor is valid and there is no remedy at law for simply making a bad deal. (Thomas v Thomas (1842))
General rule is that consideration must be sufficient (generally the price the goods were advertised for) but need not be adequate (i.e. the price paid need not be more than the cost / value of the goods received in return).
All in all the vendor needs to change their process so that they ensure that they do not under any cicumstances take the money for goods that they are unable to supply at that price as in taking the money, even if attempt is made to return it, they had already entered into a legally binding contract.
Of course, goodwill and common sense should come into play and in general the people here are realiists and play fair. Just "legally" Sam and Tommo actually held all of the cards as Lucid were in breach of a valid contract.
But, this is the real world and whose silly enough to go through all of the anguish of going to court to force a transaction that a vendor does not want to make when costs will not necessarily be given where the court thinks that the claimants are not acting in good faith.
Basically for this sort of money all parties could be out of pocket so best just to take the refund.
One of those cases where whats black and white on paper is quite grey in the real world.
All the best,
Shamus.