Bait and switch

Started Feb 3, 2014 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 947
Re: Bait and switch

Pontoneer wrote:

gazis wrote:

Thanks Derek,

This is clear: if a charge exists, then value has changed ownership and this must be reflected on both participants. Hence the retailer would be legally obliged to either deliver the item, or, refund in full.

However, what if the item's price has not been charged to the consumer but the later is provided with information that the order was accepted? Assuming the item is in stock, would that stand as ground for the retailer to be obliged to provide the item at the price quoted in the order?



I am no lawyer but I think that situation is less clear .

If something is offered for sale at a certain price , and a customer tries to pay , then is told that price is incorrect , there is provision ( in UK law at least ) for a genuine error and the retailer can point out that it was a mistake and are not obliged to sell .

Having said that , most genuine retailers will honour prices quoted in error ( unless the quoted price is way under the true value - for example a decimal point in the wrong place ) . If it actually gets so far that payment is accepted and a receipt issued then the deal is binding . It may be possible , where it is clear that a mistake was made , for the seller to refund in full and point this out , but there have been cases of large companies honouring items wrongly sold for a fraction of the correct prices before errors were spotted .

In both cases , it is unlikely that a court would take action if it can be shown that the customer suffered no loss ( other than being denied something at a bargain price ) .

-- hide signature --

With kind regards

You're pretty well correct however a dispute can arise if, for example. I walk into a store and ask them to specifically order an item: 'I like that sofa but not in red, order me one in green' No money has changed hands but a signed order would commit you to the offered price and a commitment to pay. In theory a verbal agreement would do the same but very hard to enforce.

In this case the court would take the view that the retailer had taken a loss by ordering in a special item at the customer request and had suffered financial loss.

This is diverting from the thread. Consumer law is extremely complex. I did it for 3 years and it's a minefield.

-- hide signature --

The degree of technical knowledge of the fanboi owner is inversely proportional to the size of his ego.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow