Panorama Holiday Booking

Clockers

Hi all,
Did anyone book a holiday with Panorama last night to Madeira at the stated price of 98 euro??!! This was the advertised price on their website and booking was confirmed via e-mail. This morning however a call came to say there was a web error...however I explained I made the booking in good faith, gave credit card details and received a confirmation etc.

Did anyone else book??

Is there anyone with a good legal brain to point us in the right direction and getting them to honour the booking, moreso??

Cheers

Stillnotworking

Something similar was on screen here a while ago with a couch in Argos, I think the original poster won in the end. Its a bit of a read but may be worth it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055467801&highlight=argos+sofa

Jev/N

Having been studying contract law for the last few months for the upcoming professional law exams, this seems like a typical problem question we face!

Legally, they will have two arguments:

1. They made a mistake in the stated price and you acted on that mistake. However, you knew there was something awry with it as it was obvious it shouldn't have been that price but went ahead anyways.

or

2. If the former argument doesn't succeed, they will argue that a valid contract never came into existence for lack of acceptance (of your offer) on their part. This area can tend to be quite grey but in my opinion, there isn't a valid contract here. Those confirmation e-mails are sent automatically and there needs to be intention on their part, in conjunction with communication, for valid acceptance.


In fairness most of the above is moot at best as this will never proceed to the small claims court unless at your behest. If I were you, I would argue it with them but leave it after that as it may end up being too much hassle.

The best arguments you could make are that either the advertisement was specific and definite enough (containing terms and conditions etc) to be a unilateral offer which you could accept or that the mistake (as in point 1) was not obvious to you as it seemed to be a part of an end of summer sale or something to that effect.

Best of luck with it anyway!

ScouseMouse

I agree with above but would just like to point something out.

The travel industry is in crisis. Just this week, I read in the paper that Stein and Slattery Travel have folded.

Obviously, its very tough out there for everyone. Whatever you may think, there is still right and wrong and I personally believe you you are wrong to even try to enforce a mistake like this.

KARMA ?

penexpers

Clockers wrote: »

Hi all,
Did anyone book a holiday with Panorama last night to Madeira at the stated price of 98 euro??!! This was the advertised price on their website and booking was confirmed via e-mail. This morning however a call came to say there was a web error...however I explained I made the booking in good faith, gave credit card details and received a confirmation etc.

Did anyone else book??

Is there anyone with a good legal brain to point us in the right direction and getting them to honour the booking, moreso??

Cheers

I think with all these misprice cases, it comes down to when the contract was formed.

Section 1 of Panorama's terms states

No contract shall be formed between you and Panorama Holidays until you have received confirmation that Panorama has accepted your booking.

They don't state what is an "accepted booking" though.

bryanrmurphy

Jev/N wrote: »

Having been studying contract law for the last few months for the upcoming professional law exams, this seems like a typical problem question we face!

Legally, they will have two arguments:

1. They made a mistake in the stated price and you acted on that mistake. However, you knew there was something awry with it as it was obvious it shouldn't have been that price but went ahead anyways.

or

2. If the former argument doesn't succeed, they will argue that a valid contract never came into existence for lack of acceptance (of your offer) on their part. This area can tend to be quite grey but in my opinion, there isn't a valid contract here. Those confirmation e-mails are sent automatically and there needs to be intention on their part, in conjunction with communication, for valid acceptance.


In fairness most of the above is moot at best as this will never proceed to the small claims court unless at your behest. If I were you, I would argue it with them but leave it after that as it may end up being too much hassle.

The best arguments you could make are that either the advertisement was specific and definite enough (containing terms and conditions etc) to be a unilateral offer which you could accept or that the mistake (as in point 1) was not obvious to you as it seemed to be a part of an end of summer sale or something to that effect.

Best of luck with it anyway!

I take your points on board but they actually processed the payment the next day and it has been taken off my card so it appears that a legally binding contract was effected at that stage. They also amended the booking on two occasions without reference to any problem with the price. Consumer Association is pretty adamant that a legal contract was in place and Panorama's terms and conditions on their own website consolidates this view. The offer was also listed in motre than one place on their website and I booked it in good faith considering it to be a special offer.

Clockers

Thanks guys,

I have similarly have had money taken from my account , seemingly after they have discovered their mistake!!

I seem to remember a fiasco with Aer Lingus recently where low price flights to the states became quite a media story. From memory they had to honour the booking?? I may be corrected on that one.

The way I look at it is, I entered a legal agreement with them at their stated price, on a website owned and operated by them.
Might have appeared to be a good or even exceptional price...but bear in mind Ryanair offer free flights!!

The latest is they are referring to a clause 8, "alteration by the organiser"...which mentions "force majeure" as one reason amongst others to cancel a contract. There is absolutely nothing with regards to a web error as claimed.

Time will tell.....

parsi

superscouse wrote: »

Obviously, its very tough out there for everyone. Whatever you may think, there is still right and wrong and I personally believe you you are wrong to even try to enforce a mistake like this.

KARMA ?

Maybe the OP considers that s/he is now going to benefit from karma. After all there are many reports of the travel agencies screwing people.

dudara

If the retailer made a genuine error in their pricing, then they can refuse to honour any sales at that price. We've had numerous incidences where that has happened, including the recent debacle with Littlewoods. Check out the term "Invitation to Treat".

The Aer Lingus incident you mentioned was similar, but Aer Lingus decided to offer people flights as goodwill gestures - mainly due to the barrage of public outcry on Joe Duffy (god, retailers must hate that show, even if they make a genuine error, they get slated by misinformed members of the public).

Nody

Aer Lingus dd NOT have to honor it and they ended up offer the flight as cattle class instead of business which many had booked as good will gesture.

MunsterCycling

If the credit card was charged then a contract has been formed.

dudara

They can still refuse the contract, even if they charged your credit card. The contract may not be considered completed until the goods are delivered and accepted.

It's a little grey when it comes to internet shopping, as a transaction can be completed and charged without any human interaction. The mistake may not be immediately noticed by a person.

dirtyaggie

Clockers wrote: »

Hi all,
Did anyone book a holiday with Panorama last night to Madeira at the stated price of 98 euro??!! This was the advertised price on their website and booking was confirmed via e-mail. This morning however a call came to say there was a web error...however I explained I made the booking in good faith, gave credit card details and received a confirmation etc.

Did anyone else book??

Is there anyone with a good legal brain to point us in the right direction and getting them to honour the booking, moreso??

Cheers

I also booked madeira panorama holidays for 98 euros. I also got the phonecall and was made to feel extremely stupid by them for thinking it could be true.
Consumer affairs said that if they gave a confirmation number and took payment from my account that they have entered into a contract. which they have. They suggestes i contact the small claims court. I want my holiday, i have paid for it and its going to be mine!

I am seeing a solicitor on monday and i only wish i had the b---s to contact joe duffy and would love it someone would but i would be a nervous wreck. There has to be more people with this problem.
lets join forces.

MunsterCycling

dudara wrote: »

They can still refuse the contract, even if they charged your credit card. The contract may not be considered completed until the goods are delivered and accepted.

It's a little grey when it comes to internet shopping, as a transaction can be completed and charged without any human interaction. The mistake may not be immediately noticed by a person.

And how does that work so, the consideration has been accepted and the goods should be delivered as per that contract, unless you can point out where that is covered in consumer law I don't think they have a leg to stand on, they can try to shrug it off but stick by your guns and see what they do

Jev/N

MunsterCycling wrote: »

If the credit card was charged then a contract has been formed.

This isn't completely true.

Merely giving the credit card details is enough consideration but as I already mentioned, if the whole system is automated, they can argue that the intention to accept didn't accompany the communication.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. There's no point in saying a contract has been formed and that's it. Remember this isn't even taking into account any of the T&C's, many of which would cover a situation such as this.

dudara

MunsterCycling wrote: »

And how does that work so, the consideration has been accepted and the goods should be delivered as per that contract, unless you can point out where that is covered in consumer law I don't think they have a leg to stand on, they can try to shrug it off but stick by your guns and see what they do

\

Consumer law does allow them to back out if they made a mistake. Contract law was formed in the days of human interaction before automated internet transactions. It badly needs revision to cover cases like this.

Realistically, I wouldn't be trying to persue this. The price was clearly too good to be true. They made a mistake and if you chase them for it, you'll cause them to incur extra cost, which they'll ultimately have to pass on to all of us. Karma's a b*tch like that.

I just also want to point out that if had genuinely tried to scr*w with me, I would have no hesitation in chasing them. It's just that this isn't such a case.

dirtyaggie

Jev/N wrote: »

This isn't completely true.

Merely giving the credit card details is enough consideration but as I already mentioned, if the whole system is automated, they can argue that the intention to accept didn't accompany the communication.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. There's no point in saying a contract has been formed and that's it. Remember this isn't even taking into account any of the T&C's, many of which would cover a situation such as this.

It states in their terms and conditions that once you recieve a booking number and you have paid a deposit or in full a contract has been formed.
presumably its to protect them but cant it work for the consumer also.
It also states in the package and travel act 1995 that a travel agent can only cancel a contract if there are not enough people to complete the package or a force majoure(forgive the spelling) act of god
I could be mistaken but thats what i get from it. It also says that they would have to give a holiday of same quality or better (more or less)

Clockers

Hi Dirtyaggie and all contributors!

I certainly don't feel silly for booking a holiday that they claim and admit themselves was advertised as a web error.

The person who I have been in contact with is off till Tuesday so I will be on to her first thing to resolve this matter.

We all sometimes have to take a stand on principle...

On a totally separate note, and may I be clear about this..it has had NO bearing WHATSOEVER on my situation or intentions...Panorama Holidaysis owned by Thomas Cook. Does that ring a bell with anyone very recently..ie the Grafton Street branch.

wyndham

As a matter of interest, what should the price have been?

dubbin

I t makes me laugh with the mentality of the Irish People regarding these Complaints, they are so negative , If a Price is posted regarding a PackageHoliday for whatever the price !the consumer has the right to buy !at that price . According to the terms of Panorama and that of Irish Legislation it does not say anything suggesting that a Contract was not formed. The booking reference plus the fact Automated or not Panorama have these peoples monies in their account effectively they paid in full honoring their terms and conditions. I personally think you should fight for what should be yours I am sick to the teeth of Holiday Companies getting away with blue murder with the so called GREY AREAS. I hope you get what is legally yours! NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE ATTITUDE OF PANORAMA NEED A COURSE ON PUBLIC RELATIONS

---

dudara

dubbin wrote: »

If a Price is posted regarding a PackageHoliday for whatever the price !the consumer has the right to buy !at that price .

You do not have the automatic right to purchase at that price. Read up on the concept of "Invitation to Treat". It does not matter whether the retailer is a bricks'n'mortar shop, an online retailer or, in this case, a travel agent.

We are trying to help and educate people in the Consumer Issues forum, not passing on fallacies.

dubbin

dudara wrote: »

You do not have the automatic right to purchase at that price. Read up on the concept of "Invitation to Treat". It does not matter whether the retailer is a bricks'n'mortar shop, an online retailer or, in this case, a travel agent.

We are trying to help and educate people in the Consumer Issues forum, not passing on fallacies.

I stand corrected on the above, if you see a price for an item to purchase and do so complying with the procedure of purchase as set down by the Retailer ,in good faith payment made and reference booking received a Contract has been entered into .

dirtyaggie

dudara wrote: »

You do not have the automatic right to purchase at that price. Read up on the concept of "Invitation to Treat". It does not matter whether the retailer is a bricks'n'mortar shop, an online retailer or, in this case, a travel agent.

We are trying to help and educate people in the Consumer Issues forum, not passing on fallacies.

Do you by any chance have shares in panorama?

IT was consumer affairs that told me a contract was formed and they are breaking it. I read the terms and conditions to sure before i booked to make sure it was legal.
I travel at least twice a year with panorama and have never had a problem with them. They have a great reputation and that is why i never thought it was an error.
If it was an error then they need to take it up with whoever services their website

Why is there grey areas for big business but not for people.

bryanrmurphy

dirtyaggie wrote: »

I also booked madeira panorama holidays for 98 euros. I also got the phonecall and was made to feel extremely stupid by them for thinking it could be true.
Consumer affairs said that if they gave a confirmation number and took payment from my account that they have entered into a contract. which they have. They suggestes i contact the small claims court. I want my holiday, i have paid for it and its going to be mine!

I am seeing a solicitor on monday and i only wish i had the b---s to contact joe duffy and would love it someone would but i would be a nervous wreck. There has to be more people with this problem.
lets join forces.

I wrote into Joe Dufy and also conatcted Hearald am. Awaiting a reply. I am certain that a valid contract exists and I have no problem pursuing this as a group. I booked, received a separate confirmation, had payment taken and still not refunded and amended my booking twice with human interaction on both occasions. You do not need a law degree to know this is a valid contract and I will be seeing a solicitor also. I have also put in with the small claims court. Lets keep in touch and see what develops on this.

Clockers

Someone asked "what the price should have been?"

Without being flippant..the price WAS the price advertised..ie 98 euro.

This particular holiday, i.e. flight and a named hotel was actually listed twice on Panorama's webpage. You had a choice to enter particulars and book either.

I also have e-mailed Joe Duffy, and was a on to Consumer Assoc who told me what others had been told. I'll share any developments.

I also have no difficulty taking this further.

For others in the same boat, and I believe about 35 are affected, keep in touch.

Jev/N

I'm not gonna go repeating everything that dudara has already said but suffice it to say, it's all correct. Even if a binding contract was created, they can still rescind it on the grounds of mistake.

There is a small chance that Panorama may honour this in an attempt to avoid a PR disaster in the same vein that Aer Lingus did but the do not have to!

Also, of course the CAI are going to tell you that you have a case but, realistically, it's a small one at best

dudara

dirtyaggie wrote: »

Do you by any chance have shares in panorama?

Why is this the standard response when someone points out a contradicting view?

IT was consumer affairs that told me a contract was formed and they are breaking it. I read the terms and conditions to sure before i booked to make sure it was legal.

It is a fundamental part of contract law that both sides enter into the contract with honesty etc. Panorama have since stated that there was an error on their part, and this can negate the contract, as the basic premise upon which the contract was based has now changed.

You freely admit that you travel with Panorama regularly and have never had trouble. Yet when this happens, you're trying to burn them at the cross?

dirtyaggie

dudara wrote: »

Why is this the standard response when someone points out a contradicting view?



It is a fundamental part of contract law that both sides enter into the contract with honesty etc. Panorama have since stated that there was an error on their part, and this can negate the contract, as the basic premise upon which the contract was based has now changed.

You freely admit that you travel with Panorama regularly and have never had trouble. Yet when this happens, you're trying to burn them at the cross?

It is BECAUSE they are such a reliable company that it never entered my head that it was an error.
I take offence that people think we were trying to do something underhand here. we simply booked a bargain break and pardon me for expecting to recieve something i paid for.
I would imagine that panorama have a contract with whoever services their website and they need to take the matter up wit them.
But for me my contract is with panorama.
Who may i say has not deneied that there is a contract yet.

dirtyaggie

Hi all.

I was on to panorama again today to the head of oprations and she denied that money was taken from my account even though i have a letter from my bank saying they have.

went to my solicitor and she confirmed there is a contract!
I am going to pursue the case .

parsi

dirtyaggie wrote: »

I was on to panorama again today to the head of oprations and she denied that money was taken from my account even though i have a letter from my bank saying they have.

That must be one hyper-efficient bank to get a letter out to you in double-quick time.

I don't have shares in Panorama.

dirtyaggie

parsi wrote: »

That must be one hyper-efficient bank to get a letter out to you in double-quick time.

I don't have shares in Panorama.

I had no bother getting a letter.Just called in to my bank thursday and explained i had an appointment with solicitor and had it this morning.

dubbin

parsi wrote: »

That must be one hyper-efficient bank to get a letter out to you in double-quick time.

I don't have shares in Panorama.

I think there are people out there replying to this problem who are far too smart and patronising to us the people who booked this holiday. I am quite sure if you had booked this holiday in good faith you would not feel as we do .as previous people have said they felt it was a bargain offer as it was a September Sale,also what about all the crazy price offers from holiday and airlines , who ever thought you could fly for 1euro I rest my case.

May I add that Panaroma have been absolutly rude arrogant and un buisness like. which for a huge company is arrogant.

Nody

But that is the point; it is NOT a reasonble offer and hence if you thought you could get a flight AND hotel for a week for 98 EUR all inclusive in good faith then I got a nice red bridge for sale...

It would be the same if BMW had a new 09 5 series listed at 2.000 EUR all inclusive on their web site and you bought it claiming they accepted it so all is fair and now they should deliver. At some point you have ask if the price is reasomble and if it is not you have not entered the contract in good faith and hence the contract can be delcared null and void.

Con Matthews

Hmmmmm! Well DirtyAggie, It would appear you have the bit between your teeth on this issue. Here's my read of the situation, I too booked online and received the telephone call explaining their mistake and to be honest, it was just a simple mistake.
I think you are trying to force them to give you something that you simply are not entitled to. Why are you not letting go of the bone (which by the way was never there)?
Tell me, do you make a habbit of sueing people? Have you in the past taken action many times? Perhalps you are known a Mr & Mrs Sue-It eh?

Why not move on with your life and put the matter to bed.

dubbin

Nody wrote: »

But that is the point; it is NOT a reasonble offer and hence if you thought you could get a flight AND hotel for a week for 98 EUR all inclusive in good faith then I got a nice red bridge for sale...

It would be the same if BMW had a new 09 5 series listed at 2.000 EUR all inclusive on their web site and you bought it claiming they accepted it so all is fair and now they should deliver. At some point you have ask if the price is reasomble and if it is not you have not entered the contract in good faith and hence the contract can be delcared null and void.[/QUOTA

What price is the Bridge!---- I love red bridges , maybe we can enter into a contract( if you know the definition) Make yourself a strong cup of tea and watch the CBBC TV you would. be better off .
YOU know more than Consumers -Irish Legislation- Solicitors etc
Are you thinking of changing your profession / a commedian would be more apt,

dudara

dubbin - and other posters while I appreciate that you are emotive about this issue, I am going to have to ask posters to consider their responses before replying and refrain from insulting each other.

dudara

TBH - and I am replying here as a private individual - I cannot see how a contract was formed here when one side has admitted that there was a mistake.

To use a very bad analogy - it's like convicting an innocent man.

Con Matthews

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this year?

Grow up people.

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Hmmmmm! Well DirtyAggie, It would appear you have the bit between your teeth on this issue. Here's my read of the situation, I too booked online and received the telephone call explaining their mistake and to be honest, it was just a simple mistake.
I think you are trying to force them to give you something that you simply are not entitled to. Why are you not letting go of the bone (which by the way was never there)?
Tell me, do you make a habbit of sueing people? Have you in the past taken action many times? Perhalps you are known a Mr & Mrs Sue-It eh?

Why not move on with your life and put the matter to bed.

I have never sued anyone before in my life and would never attempt to but for the fact i realy belived this to be real.
I have taken a week off at my own expense as has my partner.
also if you were treated with the condscending attitude that i have you would probably do the same.
I ceterainly didnt want the disruption and cost of sueing when a sincere apology and small goodwill gesture wouldnt have gone astray.

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this year?

Grow up people.

by the way are you con matthews originaly dublin used to work in burtons and moved to dungarvin

Nody

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:

Sales of Goods Act 1980 Section 45 wrote:

45.—(1) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true.

(2) Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed in any proceedings arising out of the contract that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.

[GA] (3) Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1), but where he is so liable any award under subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under subsection (1).

See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.

SCHEDULE

[GA] FAIR AND REASONABLE TERMS

[GA] 1. In determining for the purposes of section 13, 31, 40 or 46 of this Act or section 55 of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) if a term is fair and reasonable the test is that it shall be a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

[GA] 2. Regard is to be had in particular to any of the following which appear to be relevant:

[GA] ( a ) The strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer's requirements could have been met;

[GA] ( b ) whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having to accept a similar term;

[GA] ( c ) whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);

[GA] ( d ) where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;

[GA] ( e ) whether any goods involved were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.

[GA] 3. In this Schedule—

[GA] "contract" includes "agreement",

[GA] "term" includes "agreement" and "provision".

Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

Is that clear enough for you why I'm saying that the contract is not valid?

dubbin

Con Matthews wrote: »

Well said dudara, Let's not turn this issue into a slagging match. We are all adults here and should act accordingly.

THINK before any of you embarrass yourselves.
It was a simple mistake and yis are trying to make it into something it isn't because you smell a free or cheep holiday. Wake up and smell the coffee, it was never REAL!!!

Dubbin, you have to calm those jets of yours, haven't you been on enough (Ego-trips this yea
Grow up people.

Yes you are right it is turning into a slagging match and that is not my style,
but you tell me why you are doing it, re ego trip I do not need to go on a trip just a holiday . The reason I am angry is that some people are making us out as stupid and poking fun ,do you think I have nothing better to do while I am angry at Panoromas manner in this case I do not need to be ridiculed for standing up for my PRINCIPLES.

Con Matthews

dirtyaggie wrote: »

I have never sued anyone before in my life and would never attempt to but for the fact i realy belived this to be real.
I have taken a week off at my own expense as has my partner.
also if you were treated with the condscending attitude that i have you would probably do the same.
I ceterainly didnt want the disruption and cost of sueing when a sincere apology and small goodwill gesture wouldnt have gone astray.

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

gaz wac

To be fair to both sides, to say that you couldnt get a holiday for €98 and that the OP should have know better is a bit ott! I always leave my holiday bookings till the last minute, best one was with Budget for €120 ( flights/accom/transfers). So €98 is not excatly madness and unbelievable.

dubbin

Nody wrote: »

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:
See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.



Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

Is that clear enough for you why I'm saying that the contract is not valid?

Get your facts right /the above while very interesting does not stand over payment accepted and withdrawn from bank and still to this moment has not being credited back, while i appreciate your time in downloading these facts the Irish statue book does not state as above /a holiday Price can not be changed 20 days before departure if so a holiday of the same standard or better has to be given why are you all saying different when according to Consumers rights- Irish statue law -Solicitors etc. can they be all wrong?
at this point I think this is becoming rediculous.

smelltheglove

I have to say I would have booked it straight away myself! Holiday companies do come up with special offers every once in a whil and some people get lucky, I went on hols recently and paid less than 200 for a family of 4 to stay in an apartment, ok so the flights were sperate, these were a gift but with cheap flights and a 200 apartment you never know whow lucky you can get, so i dont think it is idiotic to believe that this is actually a real deal.

On from that, I do believe that when the money has been taken for a service the service should be provided, unfortunately there are many many ways around this, I once had a situation where I gave up a €500 deposit rather than go through the hassles of arguing my rights or trying to get a company to act on the price they had initially quoted me rather than the newer more expensive price.

Sometimes it is more hassle than it is worth but I admire those that will stand for their rights and get what they paid for.

These days you can get ryanair flights for less than €50 to hot destinations, why would a week away for €98 be uncomprehensable?

dubbin

Con Matthews wrote: »

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

This is beyond a joke you are making assumptions over this person . I feel you go too far sir . ( Imperial Hotel - DUNMORE EAST- CORK)

dirtyaggie

Nody wrote: »

Dub, here's a novel idea how about you actually read the damn law?

Allow me to qoute it for you:
See section 1; if the contract was entered under incorrect information (i.e. you can not prove it was reasonble and expected price) your right to compensation is reduced accordingly.



Now you can claim a contract all you want but that contract can also be cancelled based on the fact the information was incorrect; the company took appropiate steps to correct it (i.e. refund the money) AND it was not reasonble for you to expect it to be true.

I personaly would prefer to belive my solicitor and will accept her advice
but thanks anyway

Con Matthews

Dirtyaggie are you and dubbin sisters?

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Yes, I am the same.

First, I do not believe that you never sued anyone... ever. (Search your feelings Luke). Secondly, you didn't take a week off that quickly (you only booked hours before) and thirdly, your husband couldn't go any - who'd mind the kids!

Come'on, as my father always said (God rest his soul) 'Call a spade a spade' and except it for what it is.

well conlaith my dear.
i CERTAINLY remember you.
I work for a small buisness and my partner is boss in own business(still needs cover tho) children are grown and spotted holiday in the morning had cover arranged by evening Yes i am superwomem

dirtyaggie

Con Matthews wrote: »

Dirtyaggie are you and dubbin sisters?

not that i know of

Con Matthews

well, Dirtyaggie, it would appear you know me! I have not gone by that name in a loooong time! who, prey tell, and why are you so interested in trying to draw blood from a poor stone that did nothing wrong?