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 That would mean that it would now be superseded by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002).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)