Price rises, cancelled orders & the Legal position

J

JasH

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Name
Jas
Edit My Images
No
I am sure this happened to many togs in the current climate of price rises, so hopefully some clarity and useful discussion will ensue

Like many, I ordered a number of items a month or two ago. Some retailers have been great, such as Warehouse Express, and honoured the orders at the order price Others, such as Jessops have not

I am aware that under contract law, a retailer can normally cancel our orders so long as they do not take payment i.e. no contract comes into being. Correct?

However, what about this scenario:

1/ I ordered two items in one order.
2/ Retailer waits, then takes payment for one item and ships it.
3/ After a few more weeks, the retailer cancels the order saying the item is out of stock and will not be back in (it's a common item - Sigma 1.4x TC).

I write to the retailer (XXX):

I have not said you took payment for this item - only that you accepted my order when you took some payment. A contract to supply came into being at that point. XXX have a duty to supply the goods, and my duty is to pay in full.

Per case law, if you refuse to now supply the goods, I have to mitigate my loss by obtaining the item elsewhere. Prices have risen since I placed my order with you, therefore I will suffer a loss. XXX are liable for my loss so long as I obtain the item at the best price I reasonably can.

I am however willing to be reasonable. If you wish to supply an alternative product of equal or better quality, I am willing to consider it.

Do I have a case, or am I wrong in law?

Secondly, a valid question is of course whether there is one contract per order, or the order comprises multiple contracts - one per item. I think the former.

Thanks :thumbs:
 
I reserved my package online on wednesday and picked it up in store at Jessops yesterday to realise the the price of the eos 1000d had gone up by £50. However they honoured the price I reserved it at:)
 
a1ex2001 said:
read the t&c's on the web site concerned.
Click to expand...

From their web site:

"Acceptance of your order and the formation of a contract between us will take place when the goods you have ordered have been despatched to you..."

Is this legal, or perhaps an unfair contract term, and prohibited by law?

Is the law not that a contract is formed when an offer is made, and accepted by the other party? Taking payment being "acceptance".
 
I had the same with Robert White, but they were great and let me have the goods at the pre-increase price :)
 
There is no obligation to supply the goods.

Legally its an "Invitation to Treat".

Its always better to spend time reading the T&Cs at the time of the order - this is more productive than Internet postings after the fact.
 
JasH said:
From their web site:

"Acceptance of your order and the formation of a contract between us will take place when the goods you have ordered have been despatched to you..."

Is this legal, or perhaps an unfair contract term, and prohibited by law?

Is the law not that a contract is formed when an offer is made, and accepted by the other party? Taking payment being "acceptance".
Click to expand...

I suspect that, if you ordered online, somewhere in the tiny print would have been some kind of clause saying something along the lines of "By placing your order you signify your acceptance of our terms and conditions"?

In any case, if I remember correctly, a contract exists when there is "Invitation to treat" followed by "Offer" and "Acceptance". A contract can legitimately be brought to an end without completion as "frustrated" when either party is simply unable to complete the transaction. So, if I've committed to supply you with a widget at a given price and my supplier then increases the price at which I can buy said widget, I can no longer fulfil my end of the contract and unless you and I can negotiate a revised price the contract could quite correctly be frustrated. Quite boring, isn't it.
 
puddleduck said:
There is no obligation to supply the goods.

Legally its an "Invitation to Treat".

Its always better to spend time reading the T&Cs at the time of the order - this is more productive than Internet postings after the fact.
Click to expand...

I think once the payment has been taken then the contract has been made, however the law is different north/south of the border. Up here a verbal contract is binding, proving one exists, on the other hand, is a whole different matter ;)
 
Awkward one.

I don't think the Ts & Cs on the web site would hold up. If they take money from you before they dispatch the goods, then the contract is definitely created at that point.

But forcing them to accept that could be difficult and expensive.

Furthermore, their Ts & Cs don't say explicitly what happens if an order is split into multiple shipments. Is there just one contract? Or are there multiple contracts, one for each sub-order which is fulfilled separately. There must me some case law on this point, but I don't know what it says. However, the retailer could claim that by accepting part of the money offered they have entered into a contract for the supply of part of the order. On the face of it that's not an unreasonable stance, and it might be difficult and expensive to get them to reconsider.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think once the payment has been taken then the contract has been made, however the law is different north/south of the border. Up here a verbal contract is binding, proving one exists, on the other hand, is a whole different matter ;)
Click to expand...

Payment wasn't taken for the second item.

Jessops do not bill for out-of-stock items.
 
puddleduck said:
There is no obligation to supply the goods.

Legally its an "Invitation to Treat".

Its always better to spend time reading the T&Cs at the time of the order - this is more productive than Internet postings after the fact.
Click to expand...
I think that's a red herring, PD. When the retailer offers the good for a certain price, that's certainly an Invitation To Treat - they're not obliged to sell for that price. But when they accept the money, they have entered into a contract.

As I said previously, I think the issue is really whether the one contract covers the whole order, and my opinion is no.
 
StewartR said:
I think that's a red herring, PD. When the retailer offers the good for a certain price, that's certainly an Invitation To Treat - they're not obliged to sell for that price. But when they accept the money, they have entered into a contract.
Click to expand...

I dis-agree.

The OP is in a better position than if they had cancelled every item in the order.

He has not been charged for the item in question - therefore there is no "meeting of minds", which is also required to form a contract.

No contract - no case.
 
stato77 said:
I reserved my package online on wednesday and picked it up in store at Jessops yesterday to realise the the price of the eos 1000d had gone up by £50. However they honoured the price I reserved it at:)
Click to expand...

That is clearly stated when using reserve and collect - nothing out of the ordinary. :)
 
The way to avoid such problems is to make it clear at the time of placing the order that you require both items to be supplied otherwise the contract is null and void.

Mind you I expressly stated on a lens order that I did not want it delivered by CityLink and the order should not be accepted if this was the company's chosen courier. I got an email back stating that my wishes had been noted and so my lens duly arrived.....in a CityLink van :suspect:
 
StewartR said:
Furthermore, their Ts & Cs don't say explicitly what happens if an order is split into multiple shipments. Is there just one contract? Or are there multiple contracts, one for each sub-order which is fulfilled separately.
Click to expand...

True however the T's & C's do state that a contract is only entered into once the product has been dispatched. :)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Mind you I expressly stated on a lens order that I did not want it delivered by CityLink and the order should not be accepted if this was the company's chosen courier. I got an email back stating that my wishes had been noted and so my lens duly arrived.....in a CityLink van :suspect:
Click to expand...

In one piece? :suspect:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The way to avoid such problems is to make it clear at the time of placing the order that you require both items to be supplied otherwise the contract is null and void.
Click to expand...

Actually that position is not beneficial to the purchaser.

You sure you are advocating that?

EG: You order a Sigma 100-300 + 1.4x TC. Sigma ships at £599. TC is cancelled.

Alternative is the whole order is cancelled, and you end up re-ordering the 100-300 at £799 which has now gone up...?

Just an example, but I'm not sure why you see this as a benefit or a solution?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think once the payment has been taken then the contract has been made, however the law is different north/south of the border. Up here a verbal contract is binding, proving one exists, on the other hand, is a whole different matter ;)
Click to expand...

There is verbal contracts are binding south of the border too, I don't know why people think its only in Scotland....
 
sadly, your probably wasting your time persuing it.
if theyd told you in the first place that your item was out of stock, you could have bought from else where.
maybe time to use a different supplier.
or tell them you only want whats in stock NOW ,next time you use them.
 
So let me get this straight.
Jessops knock the price of something down to uber cheap clearly making a loss price.
Half the internet canon user order one at ridiculous low price.
The few they have remaining in stock sell out VERY quickly (As this offer was circulated on many forums) and eventually everyone gets an email saying no more stock is due. Indeed, it seems Jessops no longer sell this item.
Jessops have not broken the law, and they have not breached their contract with you that you WILL have agreed to in their terms and conditions (What do you mean you just clicked accept without reading them?)

Whatever leg you think you have to stand on probably isn't up to the job. If you were going to get anything out of them then using the customer service approach would have been your best bet (I suspect this would have depended ont he value of your other purchase) - however in customer service people who go head first with the legal attack usually get a) it wrong (You have) and b) laughed at for making out you will 'do them a favour' by 'settling' for something that is still unreasonable.
Lesson learned, move along.
 
Consider it from another angle, what if the item had come back into stock but at a higher price?

Would you have paid the higher price or said no thanks?

It's clear that there's no contract until they dispatch and take payment, they also reserve the right to cancel an order. That you could order multiple items at one time is just convenience otherwise you'd have to place separate orders for each item. Would you do your weekly supermarket shop by queuing and paying for one item at a time?
 
I recently ordered a 17-55 lens from Park Cameras, basically I ordered on the end of january (a saturday), and the day after the price went up by well over £100, I heard nothing for a few days then got a phonecall to check my order, to my suprise Park honoured the previous price as it was 'existing' stock but explained that as the price of the kit they where importing had gone up future orders also have to go up or they obviously won't make any money. Guess I was lucky and thanks to Park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top