Forum menu
Ok, so at what price would it have been morally acceptable to buy?
FFS, it's not difficult. You see someone makes a mistake and you have a choice. You can take advantage of that misfortune for your own gain, you can walk away or you flip it round and help fix the mistake.
I know what I'd do and now I know what you'd do.
shandcycles: I know what I'd do and now I know what you'd do.
Totally agree.
Keep it.
TBH if I was the shop and had been met with such weak internet forum lawyering, I'd whack in a notice of unilateral mistake (which they've effectively done), give 7 days for return or payment and then issue a claim in debt and set about seeking summary judgement.
When the bailiffs turn up over a poxy jumper (plus costs and interest at 8% above base rate) and the neighbours curtains are in full twitch, you'll be pleased you followed the advice of STW Legal Services.
Oh, and I'd also have an alternative claim in for conversion if I didn't get it back.
Funny how ripping people off in the classifieds is worthy of a witch hunt, but doing the same to "faceless" businesses (who you were previously happy to buy from) is perfectly legit.
@ourmaninthenorth. If unilateral mistake would be your argument it would be a short lived court session. In this case as with most other " mistake cases " it would not stand up. Also Conversion would not apply in this matter. Talk about internet forum lawyers, that's a bad one right there.
There seems a lot of the legal minded folk on stw. Lots of sayings such as case law , legally binding etc. I'm fortunate enough to be married to a Barrister ( QC ) . I Often show her these " legal " quotes and usually get the same answer " they are Wikilawyers" . great saying I think.
Ourmaninthenorth now schooled!
There has been many a "PSA" anounced on the site for various online offers - remember the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-40-off-decathlon ]£40 off at Decathlon[/url] and the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-free-buff ]free buff[/url] and there was an Evans one but I can't find it, some of them were honoured, most were cancelled and monies refunded.
In fairness to the missus, she was browsing the "sale" area of the website and it turns out she has bought a few things from them previously, and she genuinely thought it was a real offer.
The email basically says that due to their technical error, they now need to cancel or charge for any orders which have been placed at £0 in error. It goes on to give us a choice of recieving a freepost returns bag, or confirmation of the date that we have posted the item back so they can update her account.
I'm sure that my missus will resolve this before we're called before a court for judgement, it just seems a bit silly as it is now worn and tags removed (and was before the email was received).
Just to play the wikilawyer, it would seem that Smith v Hughes applies
If, whatever a man's real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party's terms.
i.e. by sending out the goods, a reasonable man would believe that the company was assenting to the terms of £0 payment, therefore the company is bound by those terms as if it had intended to agree to that.
Of course IANAL, but understanding judgements isn't really that hard most of the time.
OP: does your OH [i]need[/i] both jumpers? From your original post, she was looking to buy one, but ordered the second when she realised she could get it for free.
So, if she takes the offer of a freepost bag she still has the one jumper she really wanted, she won't be any worse off financially but the business won't have lost any money and the person who made a mistake will be feeling massively happier...
It's pretty hard keeping afloat for a lot of businesses at the moment, they've accidentally given away £160 of revenue and are willing to meet the postage cost to get it back, which kind of tells you they can't afford to lose it...
Up to you, I don't want to moralise but given your OH only ever wanted one jumper, why not send it back? I know I'm very grateful when I screw up and the people it's affected show me some generosity of spirit
they've accidentally given away £160 of revenue
Well not really, because clearly she wouldn't have bought it for that. Nor have they lost the revenue from somebody else buying it, because there is nothing stopping them from restocking. What they've actually lost is their wholesale cost, which as pointed out above may not be a whole lot more than the profit on the one she paid for. I doubt this is about to send them to the wall - of course they are willing to meet the return postage cost, because they have no choice at all in that matter.
[url= http://www.bitterwallet.com/why-dont-retailers-have-to-honour-misprices/53122 ]explained here ( if still upto date)[/url]
depends on the terms and conditions of the retailer i believe.
contract complete usually at time of dispatch (if this article is accurate )
I expect this at a guess -
although maybe the retailer may still have a case for error, although I think this is unlikely and maybe may argue that as a payment has effectively not made ( unless you paid postage) then the contract is void anyway??
As the real lawyers got into above, it is possible to try and cancel a contract which was made by mistake, though the wikilawyer would tend to support scousebri's assertion that this doesn't apply in this case (because a reasonable person would believe the company was consenting to the terms by dispatching, and the company is therefore bound by them - Smith v Hughes).
I'm fortunate enough to be married to a Barrister ( QC ). I Often show her these " legal " quotes and usually get the same answer " they are Wikilawyers" .
are you also a Wikilawyer or does being married to a lawyer give you special exemption?
however you have made a payment for a basket of goods and a single transaction - which they have agreed to - so I guess the contract is fine and in reality anything could have happened to the jumper since receiving it so I expect it's unreasonable to demand it back or demand payment although you may decide to return the item. E.g. Could have been posted to the other side of the world, given as a present or sold to a friend etc.
Having bought a basket of good for £60 that includes two jumpers then I think that UK law would be fully on your side. I would keep it with zero guilt. They offered the price of £60 for two, you accepted by paying, they accepted by dispatching. You paid them something and they gave you something in exchange, so a contract was made and fullfilled. Easy peasy. (Straight from something I read on the internet ...:-))
Should have supported your Local Jumper Shop...that way, after you'd left the shop, they'd have no way of contacting you regard the error 😈
Personally and from a purely can't-be-arsed-with-the-hassle, I'd send it back, its only a jumper after all. Id express my displeasure and expect some goodwill vouchers though.
However, trickier now your missus has worn the jump as, if you did return it, what if they quibble that its been worn and therefore not resaleable...what would happen then (would they just bin it which is a shame as nobody gets the jumper)?
I sell stuff on the internet. Jumpers in fact. I'm quite surprised that they've asked for it back. Good regular customers are hard to come by and I can't imagine they'd be coming back if I started changing prices *after* they'd received them!
The internet is so full of offers that I can see why she might think that it was one of those. I can't see why she'd buy anything from them again - not in a fit of pique but just because you can't trust their website to display the correct prices and then all the hassle from them making a mistake.
If they'd contacted her before receipt and explained that there was an issue that would be different - however they didn't.
And any heavyhanded tactics by the retailer (bailiffs? Really?!) would massively backfire with a social-media PR meltdown, which would lose them far more than the wholesale cost of a jumper.
Personally I'd send it back because I think thats the right thing to do. I bought some forks from Merlin, found a new boxed headset in with it. Emailed Merlin as I assumed it was a mistake, and there was probably another customer out there frustrated at not receiving his headset. Turned out they'd previously run a "free headset" promo, it had ended but they'd found a few more headsets in the warehouse so kept sending them out. I got to keep the headset in good conscience and with a positive opinion of Merlin.
I dont think the OP's retailer has a legal case, I think the OP has a moral one.
I'd imagine that the firm have sent a considerable number of these free jumpers out, and is trying to recoup some of its losses by contacting customers, and perhaps getting a few of them back with the tags still on.
Some poor bugger may well have lost his/her job over it already.
You could ring them up, offer to send it back but warn them it's been worn. If that's of no value to them, they may take a pragmatic approach.
if it's worn they will still probably want it back though as I guess they can then claim ( from individual or their distribution/supplier company )on the grounds of soiled returned goods (at a guess)
Talk about internet forum lawyers, that's a bad one right there.
There seems a lot of the legal minded folk on stw. Lots of sayings such as case law , legally binding etc. I'm fortunate enough to be married to a Barrister ( QC ) . I Often show her these " legal " quotes and usually get the same answer " they are Wikilawyers" . great saying I think.
Just so I understand...you feel qualified to comment on legal threads on a bicycle forum on the basis that your wife's a silk?
I just started selling grey import Shimano stuff ,in an effort to put the LBS out of business
If you are interested my new website is up baitandswitch.com ,we are ready to take paypal gift NOW
All prices are 100 percent below RRP and then you have the option of paying later full RRP
ITS WHAT I CALL buy now pay later ,you will of course have read the small page of T&Cs buried somewhere as it needs to be by law on some obscure page hyperlinked by some pale coloured barely visible text.
I assume that the fella married to a QC seeks an opinion from her before posting, as opposed to believing that her knowledge simply rubs off on him!
I'm feeling a complete sucker now. I recently ordered a set of taps online, and two sets arrived in separate deliveries, but I was only charged for one.
Of course I contacted the company who were very grateful I'd let them know, and they arranged for the second set to be collected.
There's a difference between what's legal and what's moral sometimes.
Surely she has paid for it. She paid the asking price which was £0.00p. They accepted the payment she offered and dispatched the goods. It certainly isn't theft. She didn't hide it in her knickers, it was clearly in her virtual basket and was put through the virtual till and dispatched with a cheery wave and a thank you. It is entirely up to you whether you choose to return it or not. But if it were me I'd send both jumpers back and demand a full refund and never use them again. It's piss poor customer service is what it is. I'd be interested in reading the email they sent.
This is one of those situations where it helps to put yourself in someone else's shoes (or jumper) - imagine you'd made a honest mistake and someone took advantage of you, would you be quite so understanding?
I'm still calling troll!
Go on then, tell me the difference betweenA contract
A binding contract
A legally binding contract
A contract is statement which may or may not have legal significance, like an offer to give someone a free jumper for answering questions - you've said you will, I bet you don't, and if you don't do you think I can pursue you through the courts?
A binding contract is a contract which expects you to do something but with no penalties if you don't. So if you choose not to do what you said you would, that's pretty much the end of it, so you're not legally bound to fulfill your part
Legally binding means penalties or not doing it as per the contract t's and c's
100% correct! 🙂
No way I'd return, or pay for it. Their mistake. Oakley mis-priced some fancy glasses a while back. I seem to remember quite a few people on here ordering before the mistake was spotted. They all got the glasses at the bargain price
The Op and his 'Bird' wearing there sweaters
[img] 
[/img]
I assume that the fella married to a QC seeks an opinion from her before posting, as opposed to believing that her knowledge simply rubs off on him!
Heh - "opinion".
He reminds me of my old neighbour that snatched a fairly long and complicated multiunit strata agreement out of my hand and said "let me read it - my daughter did a law degree before she became an engineer, so I'm all across this stuff because I used to write her assignments". 😆
keep it, **** sending it back. its not like you ordered one and got sent two by mistake. In that case you are legally obliaged to contact the company in order than they pay for it to be returned. ordering an item at £0.00, the order being accepted, paying for it and getting it delivered is morally and legally fine.
The Op and his 'Bird' wearing there sweaters[img]
No, it's blue, not orange.
They sound a bit useless, this would have passed through several peoples hands, the person who updates the sales website, folk taking the payment, processing the order - not one person notices ? Also, you have to wonder how many jumpers they gave away by mistake, I am sure they wouldn't chase one but they may have sent out 100 ! That could put a small firm in jeopardy, people out of jobs. They may have sent 100 of these emails trying to mop up the mistake.
Phone them and ask them what they are prepared to sort out for you.
brooess - MemberOP: does your OH need both jumpers? From your original post, she was looking to buy one, but ordered the second when she realised she could get it for free.
She's a woman - she uses the same N plus 1 principle to clothes and shoes. I can never understand why she buys multiple of the same top, sometimes even in the same colour!!
its true that mistakes happen
on the other hand, its also true that companies need to invest in processes and well motivated, well paid and competent staff, and that investment helps prevent mistakes happening. Automated sales systems like this decrease staff cost and overheads, why should this be risk free for the seller?
The ease of *ucking up pricing on the internet and losing out as a company is a fair counterbalance to the overheads and risk of running a retail premises - we all know that small local jumper shops can't match the prices of people running their business from their garage or a lockup because of the overheads - well, if the internet sellers run the risk of losing out like this then they would have to invest properly in staff, and that levels the playing field.
if you paid x for something and then saw it later at the same outlet for x-y would you believe you had the right to demand y from the outlet..
^^^ I have seen a few threads on here concerning that exact scenario so yes, some would! 🙂
A contract is by definition legally binding , the question is was there a contract in this case .I guess that if this ever came to court you would lose the key issues being lack of consideration on your part and no obvious indication of any deal or promotion.
Did you seriously belive that the company genuinely intended to give you a jumper for nothing or were you simply trying to exploit a mistake ? If you are exploiting a mistake are you any more honest than the traveller in a truck who tells my mum her roof needs urgent work and takes her to a cash point to draw out £2k to pay him to glimb up a ladder and shift a lose tile.
Buy one, get one free seems a reasonably common promotion to me.
You're right in that an obvious mistake would mean that the company wouldn't have to honour the sale. If the item is £0.00 on its own then yes, that's clearly a mistake. As part of another order? Happens all the time.
Regardless, I'd be surprised if they'd much comeback [i]after [/i]shipping it.
They say they are all about being kind and fuzzy and sustainable. But in this picture the guy is clearly about to snap that animals leg off if you don't give him what he wants...
[img] 
[/img]
"I don't want break it's leg, YOU'RE MAKING ME!!!"
Ourmaninthenorth now schooled!
What, because some chap who's married to a silk had to ask her what mistake in contract means...?
LOLz. Anyway, I had to go back and read what sleep deprived nonsense I'd written! The thing about the law is that there's very little black and white. And there are plenty if us who understand how to exploit that.
PS my mrs isn't a lawyer, if that helps.
A contract is statement which may or may not have legal significance, like an offer to give someone a free jumper for answering questions - you've said you will, I bet you don't, and if you don't do you think I can pursue you through the courts?
A binding contract is a contract which expects you to do something but with no penalties if you don't. So if you choose not to do what you said you would, that's pretty much the end of it, so you're not legally bound to fulfill your part
Legally binding means penalties or not doing it as per the contract t's and c's
Brilliant!
I once watched an episode of Rumpole, and I think the OP should contact the seller, and tell them they will keep the jumper, but donate £40 to charity.