Compass reply

S

SailorFrank

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Aug 2007
Messages
172
Location
Cowes
Visit site
Thank you for your recent order for article , the Plastimo Rigid tender.Apologies for any inconvenience, but it would appear that this item was shown on our website as being priced at £0.03 at the time of ordering.This was an error and has now been corrected, we will not be able to supply this item at this price.Your order has been automatically cancelled.

The correct price for this article, as shown in our catalogue and website previously, is £339.95 plus £19.50 heavy goods postage.Please let us know if you still wish to order the article at the correct price and we will re-instate your order.

Apologies for any confusion.

Yours sincerely

Craig Marney
Compass Watersports


Oh well fun while it lasted!!
 
I wonder what has caused the price increase. They did say we were in for a time of increased inflation, but this is ridiculous - 11550% - that's why I went for a rigid dinghy!

And I got my wooden oars out and my old Seagull.
 
They've canceled my order too.

This is my reply

Dear Mr Marney

I think I have a contract with your company to supply the dinghy at the price advertised.

In English Contract Law your web site counts as an "Invitatation to treat". I make an offer to purchase the said goods, which is then formally accepted by your company by the email notification back to me..

I suggest you have a word with your legal advisors who will no doubt quote the relevant case law.

I await your reply with interest.

I know I've posted this on the other thread /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
I'm not a Lawyer, though I have studied Contract Law a little.

I don't think you have an enforceable contract: my understanding is that contracts are void for mistake.

Compass made a mistake, which you were aware of. There was therefore no "meeting of the minds".

Raffles v. Wichelhaus is the precedent that I learnt many years ago.

It will be interesting to hear the Compass Lawyer's views.
 
Gawd, not this again.

Take this through a bit at a time.

1. They reply to your mail by telling you to naff off.
2. You decide to go to court to recover your losses.
3. Oops, you didn't lose anything, so there's nothing to recover.

Or do you see this somehow going somewhere else? What exactly are you expecting to achieve, apart from annoying somebody at Compass and wasting their time in having to respond to your whinings.

It was a typo. You knew it, everyone else knows it. Get over it.
 
I agree with your conclusion Auldsot (although not your tone).. time to drop it... but would just like to point out that factually you are wrong..... the law actually is very clear that your loss is the difference between what you were offered, and what you'd have to pay in the open market... its got nothing to do with realised losses... the only debate here is whether a contract has been legally formed or not...

Besides, no one is being serious here, you just seem to have decided to defend the poor helpless (large and wealthy) company against the nasty and incorrigible (under resourced) individuals.... don't get it myself.... yes it was a typo... yes we knew it... so why can't we just remind the company of its mistake and have a bit of fun along the way?... you never know... they might be a bit more careful next time, and hence not spoil poor Jonny's day by unexpectedly cancelling the order for his birthday present, or damage one of their competitors by distorting the market temporarily, or be slipshod with customers financial details, or..................... get my drift? (note, I am not accusing them of any of these things, just suggesting that good governance and/or control systems helps avoid these thing potentially ever happening)

Consider that if someone had given the Inland Revenue a similar hard time over their handling of personal records, they might have implemented slightly more robust procedures, and hence not lost the records of 25M people in the way that they did?
 
Don't be so miserable AS. I don't care whether I get on of these over grown washing up bowls or not.

I'm just trying it on with Compass and trying to stoke the flames a bit. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I've been trying to find online a case from a few years back (about 2000). The conclusion there was something to the effect that if the price was so evidently wrong that any reasonable person would or should realise that it was a mistake, then there was no liability.

I remember it, because I didn't get the exceeding cheap LCD monitor that had been put on offer /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif and looked it up at the time.

To be fair, Compass are mad not to have it explicitly in their T&Cs that they won't honour prices that are there as a result of a typo.
 
Agreed... they need to review their T&C's as a matter of urgency... their legal advisors are doing them no favours at present... the case you might be referring to was Argos, who advertised a Sony monitor at £2.99 rather than £299.... they backed down and provided them in the end, much to the dissapointment of much of the industry who wanted the case tested in the courts of law... AFAIK the issue of mispricing is affected by the EU e-commerce directive, and this hasn't been properly tested in the courts.... the bricks and mortar equivalent is in contrast, very well tested, with the famous case being where a product was accidentally sold by weight rather than unit... can't remember the particular case law example... began with an H... something like 'Holgart' I think!

Edit.... remembered.... was Hartog!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top