Purchased item on internet

[Love2print 10]

Once a contract has been agreed the contract cannot be cancelled by the seller without them risking breach of contract. The consumer has rights when buying at a distance and can cancel within 14 days the same does not apply to the seller. It is also worth noting that the right to cancel is extended if the purchaser was not informed in a durable format (letter, email are acceptable but not just terms on a website because a website can be changed) of their right to cancel.

 

If a consumer tried to cancel after the allowed cancellation period then they would be in breach and could end up paying costs incurred by the seller. But the seller also has to try to mitigate their losses where possible.

 

An example would be cancelling a wedding photographer they day before the wedding. It would be unlikely the photographer could find another wedding so you would likley owe them the full amount or not far off. If however you cancelled a year before they could find another client and would have a responsibility to do so to mitigate their losses and its likely you would owe them very little perhaps just something to cover admin and finding another client.

 

In regards to price errors try looking up loss of bargain. This us what a consumer could claim once a contract has been formed but not concluded.

[Cyclone 10]

The T&C's to which we are now referring are all specifically about the sale and supply of goods, they are specifically written to form part of the sales contract and you generally have to tick to agree to them before you transfer money.

You have not formed a contract simply by browsing a website unless it won't let you in until you agree to some T&Cs (which isn't how most sites work).

 

Re: stealing, if a company gives you an item then you haven't stolen it, if you give a company money then they haven't stolen it. Walking in and taking is entirely different to giving.

[Love2print 10]

I think you are stuck on the point that because cash has changed hands a contract must have been formed. To make a contract consideration must have taken place.

 

In a shop you hand over the money in effect making an offer. The shop has chance to consider your offer and either accept or decline.

 

Online the taking of money is automated and as such no consideration has taken place. Even without stipulating in the terms when a contract has been formed it could still be considered that the offer has not been accepted and no contract has been made. However to avoid doubt in the customers mind most retailers make it clear when they have considered the offer to purchase and accepted the offer. Cyclone you are a good example of why retailers need to make it clear when the contract is formed as many think by just paying that means a contract has been made.

[Cyclone 10]

The legally binding contract is complete when a retailer accepts an order. However, acceptance does not necessarily happen at the point of order. Even the confirmation email may not be an acceptance. Some retailers reserve the right to cancel an order up to the point of delivery. It is therefore important to carefully check the retailer’s terms and conditions (which must be available on their website) and emails – if a retailer simply acknowledges an order, there may be no contract at that point.

According to Screwfix’s terms and conditions on its website this week, it only accepts orders once it has delivered the goods. It says the processing of a payment and acknowledgement of an order does not constitute a legally binding contract.

As with in-store purchases, once a customer has received their order a retailer generally has no right to claw back any money.

The catch:

One essential element of a contract is an intention to create legal relations. If an item has been very heavily discounted and it is clear that an error has occurred, the trader could say that it was obvious that they had no intention to form a contract at that price.

In the Screwfix case for example, the company could argue that a ride-on mower that normally costs £1,599.99 would not ever be on sale for £34.99 – and the consumer must have been aware this was a mistake.

Where an item could feasibly be priced at £34.99, something normally priced at £40 for instance, Screwfix would probably have to rely solely on its terms and conditions.

Stuart Helmer, of law firm CMS, said: “The growth of e-commerce creates huge potential for a computer glitch to lead to widespread pricing errors. Screwfix are just the latest in a long line of retailers to be caught out in this way.

“However, if the retailer has drafted its terms and conditions carefully – which Screwfix appears to have done – then, unless it has deliberately misled customers, it will usually be legally entitled to cancel the order right up to the point of delivery. Whether it chooses to do so is a question of public relations, not legal rights.”

 

From

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/money-saving-tips/10602641/Price-glitches-Do-retailers-have-to-honour-pricing-mistakes.html

 

The terms and conditions this refers to are terms and conditions of a contract that has been formed. Not some nebulous terms and conditions of a not existing contract that therefore couldn't be cancelled because it didn't exist.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 10:26 ----------

 

And this is why most retailers don't charge your card (ie take a payment) until the point at which the item is shipping.

 

Taking your card details doesn't form a contract obviously. Once payment is taken it's far less clear.

[Love2print 10]

Taking your card details doesn't form a contract obviously. Once payment is taken it's far less clear.

 

As explained there needs to be an act of consideration. You are determined to try to prove me wrong, no matter how I explain it you are not prepared to accept that money changing hands to not always equal to a contract being formed.

 

I am not going to repeat what I have already said as it like me banging my head against a wall.

[999tigger 10]

I thought it was this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v_Colin_%26_Shields

 

No idea why the need to debate.

[Cyclone 10]

As explained there needs to be an act of consideration. You are determined to try to prove me wrong, no matter how I explain it you are not prepared to accept that money changing hands to not always equal to a contract being formed.

 

I am not going to repeat what I have already said as it like me banging my head against a wall.

 

Feel free to actually prove it, rather than just saying it.

When what you're saying contradicts what I'm reading elsewhere I'm certainly not going to accept it simply because you keep repeating it.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 12:08 ----------

 

I thought it was this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartog_v_Colin_%26_Shields

 

No idea why the need to debate.

 

That would rely on the purchaser realising that there was an error in the pricing.

I don't think we're discussing that at the moment though, we're talking generally about when a contract is formed and why a contract would have a clause allowing cancellation.

[999tigger 10]

 

That would rely on the purchaser realising that there was an error in the pricing.

I don't think we're discussing that at the moment though, we're talking generally about when a contract is formed and why a contract would have a clause allowing cancellation.

 

which he confirms in the OP

 

If you were talking about soemhing else, then am off topic. You can have contracts which are voidable.

Edited August 4, 2016 by 999tigger

[Love2print 10]

http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/agreement-lecture.php

 

"Communication of Acceptance

The general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Until and unless the acceptance is so communicated, no contract comes into existence:

 

The acceptance must be communicated by the offeree or someone authorised by the offeree."

 

I also quote your own link "The legally binding contract is complete when a retailer accepts an order. However, acceptance does not necessarily happen at the point of order. Even the confirmation email may not be an acceptance."

[999tigger 10]

http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/agreement-lecture.php

 

"Communication of Acceptance

The general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Until and unless the acceptance is so communicated, no contract comes into existence:

 

The acceptance must be communicated by the offeree or someone authorised by the offeree."

 

I also quote your own link "The legally binding contract is complete when a retailer accepts an order. However, acceptance does not necessarily happen at the point of order. Even the confirmation email may not be an acceptance."

 

I presume that is to cyclone?

[Love2print 10]

I presume that is to cyclone?

 

Yes as we have differing opinions of when a contract is formed.

[Cyclone 10]

What that doesn't say though is when acceptance DOES take place. It MAY not be at the point of order, it MAY not EVEN (implying that it often is) at the point of emailing a confirmation.

I'm suggesting that it IS generally when payment is taken. (Which is not generally at the point of order, or even at the point of confirmation, but is instead at the point of dispatch or perhaps picking in the warehouse).

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 09:38 ----------

 

 

If you were talking about soemhing else, then am off topic. You can have contracts which are voidable.

It isn't off topic at all.

 

And yes, i know you can, love2print claimed that you couldn't (I think).