LAIR Thread - * Rules: post #469
- Thread starter Eagle-Vision
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it is the law that they have to uphold the price. E&OE is commonly used regards pricing in all forms of written adverts. If they had taken your money, they'd need to serve you, because in taking your money they'd have entered a contract to serve you the product. Until a contract is entered though, all they need to do is keep you informed and give you the choice to cancel (if they don't cancel it automatically).
I wonder if this'll have a negative impact on the games or not? Will some people feel a bit hard-done by and no longer see the games as worth £40 where once they would have, because they've been thinking they'd get them for £15?
I wonder if this'll have a negative impact on the games or not? Will some people feel a bit hard-done by and no longer see the games as worth £40 where once they would have, because they've been thinking they'd get them for £15?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Amazon blows...
I think it's ok to cancel the order after they noticed that there was a pricing error, but not after they have sent you an email confirming that they'll honor the price. I'll think twice before purchasing stuff from them in the future.
I think it's ok to cancel the order after they noticed that there was a pricing error, but not after they have sent you an email confirming that they'll honor the price. I'll think twice before purchasing stuff from them in the future.
After my complain letter i received this:
I got that too - but I recieved the email and I will continue to complain. I bring their site £100's of pounds - so they better give them to me for 14.95
Again, it's the old E&OE effect coming to bare. Consider this outrageous example. You see a $2000 TV on sale for $1800. You phone up and the person on the other end says 'No, you can have it for $50.' Should the company be obliged to honour that agreements? Especially when it turns out the person saying that is miffed with the company because they had their holiday canceled or something daft, and starts giving stuff away super-cheap?
The law as it is is fair. Of course we'd like to benefit from their mistakes, but the haven't done anything malicious. Somebody goofed. The company could lose lots of money if they had to honour all those sales. That would be an expensive mistake!
Of course and it's technically not a contract until they take your money, which is said enough on the site.
I accept it, just thought that it was worth the try, but I don't plan to persue it, we don't have a leg to stand on.
I will still pick up lair though, Folklore was more for the fact it was cheap, the demo was enough for me.
I accept it, just thought that it was worth the try, but I don't plan to persue it, we don't have a leg to stand on.
I will still pick up lair though, Folklore was more for the fact it was cheap, the demo was enough for me.
One person has already recieved both for £14.95 after complaining.
After my complain letter i received this:
Um, im fairly certain that by EU law, they gotta sell it to you for the price put up on the net.
Cant be arsed to actually look it up thought
See my post above. ie. what are you going to do if they refuse? Sue them?
I didn't see anything in the law to suggest this is so in a recent dispute I had with a company. Bought a washing machine from Pixmania, advertised as in stock, and 'No bill until goods dispatched'. They took the money without having any of them in stock, without knowing when they were to get more stock, and didn't notify me. This struck as unfair practice and I expected something at Trading Standards would tell me how to report them to some governing body or other.
But there wasn't. They refunded my money promptly once contacted, and only advice I got was that I might be able to get them on Misrepresentation of Goods as they advertised the product as in stock when it wasn't, and that was a reason for me choosing them as a supplier.
In this case, you could pull on the Misrepresentation of Goods act, except Amazon are covered by E&OE, and their terms and conditions clearly explain this. Of course, kicking up a stink sometimes gets you the 'win' anyway, because companies don't want to drag on arguments for ever and like happy customers. But IMO that's just sinking too low! Perhaps a very poor family keen to get an exciting present both poor little Jonny who...despite being poor has a PS3, probably nicked from someone...would have sufficient grievance to make it worthwhile. Otherwise for the staff who have to take your hassle, who aren't doing anything wrong when arguing that you should accept the lower price, it's bad form.
But there wasn't. They refunded my money promptly once contacted, and only advice I got was that I might be able to get them on Misrepresentation of Goods as they advertised the product as in stock when it wasn't, and that was a reason for me choosing them as a supplier.
In this case, you could pull on the Misrepresentation of Goods act, except Amazon are covered by E&OE, and their terms and conditions clearly explain this. Of course, kicking up a stink sometimes gets you the 'win' anyway, because companies don't want to drag on arguments for ever and like happy customers. But IMO that's just sinking too low! Perhaps a very poor family keen to get an exciting present both poor little Jonny who...despite being poor has a PS3, probably nicked from someone...would have sufficient grievance to make it worthwhile. Otherwise for the staff who have to take your hassle, who aren't doing anything wrong when arguing that you should accept the lower price, it's bad form.
Well, in well semi-well functioning countries as norway, all you have to do is call something called the Consumer's Council (free to call, open every day), talk to a guy, present your case, if you have a case, he will tell you to file an official thingy, then Consumer's Council will take it them to "consumers court" for you, for free.
Long story short, as long as your right, you get whatever the hell you wanted to begin with, and in a worst case scenario (Sony did this with the PS2, refusing to repair broken consoles) you end up with a very hefty fine and whatever the consumer is entitled to is taken from that anyway.
Technically, that person who says "you can have it for $50", depending on where you live (if oral agreements are considered as valid as written, most european countries consider them valid), consumer gets the thing for $50 bucks, and the person who on the phone ends up paying the other $1750 to the company.
As long as the costumer acts in "good faith" its not his problem, however, one could debate if its reasonable to be in "good faith" if you get offered a $2000 TV for $50 bucks.
This is the same if you are in charge of buying something for a company, you have gotten a clear message about how much you should pay (at max) and go on and exceeding it. The company is not liable for the purscase, however, the person buying it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
