When does an invitation to treat become a contract.

When does an invitation to treat become a contract.

Author
Discussion

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
Ok.

ACME Online Store is selling a product, it says Limited to 1 copy per customer (But lets you increase quantity in basket / add the item multiple times over)

I order... get to checkout and they offer CC/Debit or Paypal..

I choose paypal, checkout and pay.

They send me order confirmation email and request to make paypal payment for £amount (unless already paid)
Paypal payment for £amount has already been made during checkout, so covered..
Money has left my account.. and I have a receipt from Paypal saying the payment of £amount to ACME Online Store

In my IANAL view, this has now moved past invitation to treat, and on to binding contract, as they have offered a price, I have accepted, I have offered payment and they have accepted.. and payment has left my account and hit their payment processor, and then on to their account.

Can they get out of this if I was prepared to follow it up?

J

oggs

8,813 posts

256 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
I DON'T wanna hear what you have bought yikes

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

211 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
IIRC Invitation to treat them goes to offer > negotiation/counter offer and becomes a contract upon acceptance.

But its been a long time since I studied consumer law.

Plotloss

67,280 posts

272 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
If Argos can get out of it (which they did) thats surely some sort of precedent for such matters?

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
ACME Web Store said:
You will shortly be emailed a copy of your order to: jamie@xxxxxxxx
If you do not receive your order confirmation please contact us by phone
Order Confirmation..

That must be finite surely..

I'm basing this on the research I did during the Kodak Camera price issue back in the day (note: this isnt a price issue, just a hard to find item I've multi-ordered, so no ones going out of business over it)

randlemarcus

13,536 posts

233 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
Plotloss said:
If Argos can get out of it (which they did) thats surely some sort of precedent for such matters?
I thought the Argos thing revolved around an incorrectly entered price, and as such was outside the relevant legislation, along the lines of it was cheaper "than might reasonably be expected".

If its being offered at that price, with a condition of one per customer, and someone chooses to deliberately circumvent that (albeit by the simple expedient of adding to the basket quantity) then I suspect they'd have an argument. I suspect they normally wouldnt bother for an extra couple of items, but if its 100 and they are making a very slim margin on the product, they might.

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
randlemarcus said:
Plotloss said:
If Argos can get out of it (which they did) thats surely some sort of precedent for such matters?
I thought the Argos thing revolved around an incorrectly entered price, and as such was outside the relevant legislation, along the lines of it was cheaper "than might reasonably be expected".

If its being offered at that price, with a condition of one per customer, and someone chooses to deliberately circumvent that (albeit by the simple expedient of adding to the basket quantity) then I suspect they'd have an argument. I suspect they normally wouldnt bother for an extra couple of items, but if its 100 and they are making a very slim margin on the product, they might.
Price is fine..

no deliberate circumvention, I only noticed after I'd ordered that in the small print it was limited to 1 per customer.
Now that they've established themselves that the order has been confirmed (and as such assumedly have accepted my negotiation/request of increasing the limit of 1 per order) and taken the money via their payment processor, I don't see what legal position they have other than to fulfill the order.

It's for a limited edition item, so not low margin..

Plotloss

67,280 posts

272 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
Then it would seem to hinge on whether the small print available at the time of offer takes precedence over a shopping cart system that should have known better.

I'd say on the face of it they've got a defence in so far as the limit was stated and they shouldnt reasonably be expected to modify their software for each item in their inventory.

My speciality is AV rather than Law mind you...

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
Plotloss said:
Then it would seem to hinge on whether the small print available at the time of offer takes precedence over a shopping cart system that should have known better.

I'd say on the face of it they've got a defence in so far as the limit was stated and they shouldnt reasonably be expected to modify their software for each item in their inventory.

My speciality is AV rather than Law mind you...
smile I'm reading up on it now, just wanted to see if anyone in the great PH collective who was in the liaring business had an idea..

.. so far all I can see is it's an invitation to treat until such time as they accept my order (by confirming the order) and taking payment..

Both of which have occurred here (albeit automatically.. but that's their concern)

Still open to comments wink

Ta

J

tigger1

8,402 posts

223 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
IANAL...


I would think that they can refund your payment, on the basis that you've broken their T+Cs. They might send you none, 1 or many (as ordered)...up to them still.

All IMHO of course.

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
tigger1 said:
IANAL...


I would think that they can refund your payment, on the basis that you've broken their T+Cs. They might send you none, 1 or many (as ordered)...up to them still.

All IMHO of course.
I havent broken their T&C though.

I've negotiated with them as part of the invitation to treat, in asking them to raise this limit.

They can refuse, and not take my money, or accept, and take my money and thus (IMHO) commit to the order.

They didnt refuse, they permitted AND took my money via their chekout with PayPal.

As such I havent breached their T&C as they accepted this.

tigger1

8,402 posts

223 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
JamieBeeston said:
tigger1 said:
IANAL...


I would think that they can refund your payment, on the basis that you've broken their T+Cs. They might send you none, 1 or many (as ordered)...up to them still.

All IMHO of course.
I havent broken their T&C though.

I've negotiated with them as part of the invitation to treat, in asking them to raise this limit.

They can refuse, and not take my money, or accept, and take my money and thus (IMHO) commit to the order.

They didnt refuse, they permitted AND took my money via their chekout with PayPal.

As such I havent breached their T&C as they accepted this.
They have an automated system. How automated, I don't know...but what you ordered is outside of their usual T+Cs. At the point they realise this, they are probably within their rights to rectify the "problem" and contact you about your order.

I'm not saying they will, but I'm pretty sure they could.

JustinP1

13,330 posts

232 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
JamieBeeston said:
Plotloss said:
Then it would seem to hinge on whether the small print available at the time of offer takes precedence over a shopping cart system that should have known better.

I'd say on the face of it they've got a defence in so far as the limit was stated and they shouldnt reasonably be expected to modify their software for each item in their inventory.

My speciality is AV rather than Law mind you...
smile I'm reading up on it now, just wanted to see if anyone in the great PH collective who was in the liaring business had an idea..

.. so far all I can see is it's an invitation to treat until such time as they accept my order (by confirming the order) and taking payment..

Both of which have occurred here (albeit automatically.. but that's their concern)

Still open to comments wink

Ta

J
My contract law studies were a few years ago, but my hunch is that they could reject the order.

They did state the T&Cs of the 'one per customer', and I suppose that they could argue that they took an order in good faith of these being adhered to. For example, you could find a way of fooling their system which might give free P&P under certain conditions to apply to your order outside of their terms.

I also believe that recent case law with regard to this that an automated 'confirmation of order' was not a contractual acceptance of contract - rather it is just a confirmation that your order been received. A lot of companies T&Cs on their systems outline this.

It may be the case that they let you have the one per customer things anyway... lets see!

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
tigger1 said:
JamieBeeston said:
tigger1 said:
IANAL...


I would think that they can refund your payment, on the basis that you've broken their T+Cs. They might send you none, 1 or many (as ordered)...up to them still.

All IMHO of course.
I havent broken their T&C though.

I've negotiated with them as part of the invitation to treat, in asking them to raise this limit.

They can refuse, and not take my money, or accept, and take my money and thus (IMHO) commit to the order.

They didnt refuse, they permitted AND took my money via their chekout with PayPal.

As such I havent breached their T&C as they accepted this.
They have an automated system. How automated, I don't know...but what you ordered is outside of their usual T+Cs. At the point they realise this, they are probably within their rights to rectify the "problem" and contact you about your order.

I'm not saying they will, but I'm pretty sure they could.
But surely the fact they've skimped and made the negotiation and acceptance stage automated should not affect my statutory rights!

If they had a little man doing this, he would've dealt with it, instead they chose to outsource this to the website instead, and it accepted my negotiation on their behalf.. they could then still have refused by not accepting payment / not processing payment until they had manually verified the order.. they chose not to for whatever reason.. and instead sent me straight to checkout.. which I promptly paid.. thus concluding our contract.

sgrimshaw

7,336 posts

252 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
A lot also depends on their T&C's.

They may have a clause that says that they can cancel any order up to the point of delivery ..... for whatever reason they feel like.

If the T&C's state that by placing an order on their website you are accepting their T&C's, there would be stuff all you could do about it since you agreed to the terms.

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
sgrimshaw said:
A lot also depends on their T&C's.

They may have a clause that says that they can cancel any order up to the point of delivery ..... for whatever reason they feel like.

If the T&C's state that by placing an order on their website you are accepting their T&C's, there would be stuff all you could do about it since you agreed to the terms.
But their t&c can not override my statutory rights and established consumer law.

just because they say it, doesn't mean it's enforceable.

2 sMoKiN bArReLs

30,274 posts

237 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
scratchchin I thought a flick knife had to be involved somewhere along the line......

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
scratchchin I thought a flick knife had to be involved somewhere along the line......
haha Flickknife was one of the test cases for Invitation to treat smile

sgrimshaw

7,336 posts

252 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
JamieBeeston said:
But their t&c can not override my statutory rights and established consumer law.

just because they say it, doesn't mean it's enforceable.
I didn't say they could.

What statutory right do you have that says if they accept an order they must deliver?

They can seek to cancel the order with you. If you don't like it, then you might explore breach of contract.

Your success would depend on the terms of that contract of course.

JamieBeeston

Original Poster:

9,294 posts

267 months

Wednesday 5th March 2008
quotequote all
They have refunded the payment claiming to be 'out of stock'.

Given they listed as 'in stock' at the time of ordering, AND colleagues who placed orders AFTER mine have had confirmation, I'd say they're looking to exit the contract by trying to deceive me here.

Very unimpressed.