If so, why?
this is other b3tan's and their credit cards; at least offer an explaination
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 21:47,
Reply)
As far as your legal question goes,
whatever they advertise it at, they have to sell it at. But if worse comes to the worst, you can always return to play free of charge.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 21:49,
Reply)
that's wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat
(
the RAND corporation a.k.a. Kevin Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:06,
Reply)
That point of law does not apply in this situation surely.
They have advertised it at a certain price, and we have all paid for it at that price.
From the Trading Standards website:
"Offences
If the seller is in business (rather than a private seller), he may have committed a criminal offence if he:
*
sells goods which are unsafe;
*
has given a false description to the goods i.e. a car sold with incorrect mileage (clocked car);
*
gives a false description to the services he is providing e.g. falsely claiming to be a member of a trade association;
*
advertises a misleading price;
*
displays a sign which states 'no refunds'."
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:10,
Reply)
I think you are wishful thinking
Read the article - if it didn't work like this, the seller would be offering to enter into a contact with the entire world.
(
the RAND corporation a.k.a. Kevin Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:12,
Reply)
But there are different rules for sellers
and businesses.
EDIT: Also, the case cited in that is from 1960. That would mean that it would now be superseded by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). No?
I am not trying to get into a row though, I am not a lawyer, but it seems that would be the case to me?
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:13,
Reply)
you aren't a lawyer are you? ;)
(
the RAND corporation a.k.a. Kevin Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:19,
Reply)
Pfft!
Reading through the Trading Standards site, it does seem to explicitly differentiate between a "seller" and a "commercial business".
I did do Law at College, but I don;t remember too much of those years ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:22,
Reply)
let's hope The Goat doesn't see this
and kill the mood by saying acts are not law or whatever it is he says!!
(
applehead herp derp, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:21,
Reply)
The Goat is a Twat!
MAKE THIS STATEMENT LAW! ;D
There is a difference between Acts and Laws, but acts such as the Sales of Good are part of common law also I believe.
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:22,
Reply)
that wikipedia entry links to
a BBC article regarding Argos mistakenly advertising a TV for sale at £3 in which it says:
'Argos does not have to sell you a television for £3.
However, if the company accepts your order electronically then there may be a valid contract.
A customer who gave Argos his credit card number received what was called a Unique Order Code. That may be proof of a contract, although Argos said all items were "subject to availability"'
An order number is not visible at present, but it stands to reason they must apply a unique order number to each order..
(
applehead herp derp, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:14,
Reply)
Which would make our purchases contractual in that case then
as we have a confirmation surely?
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 14 Oct 2008, 22:17,
Reply)