Online Contract Law

stephen812

I purchased a HTC mobile phone this morning from a leading mobile provider via their online store. The phone cost €40 and the purchase went through without a problem. I recieved an Order Confirmation email and the charge was made to bank account.

However, at 5 o'clock this evening I received an e-mail from a Sales Manager of the company that went like this:

"Unfortunately due to a pricing error on our Online Store this morning we mistakenly advertised the HTC Hero at a reduced price. We realise you have ordered this phone, however we regret we cannot fulfil this order at this price. Your order has been cancelled but should you wish to purchase the phone at its correct price of €319.99, as a goodwill gesture we will offer you €100 Free Credit to your Meteor account."

Their terms and conditions state that an offer constitutes "invitations to treat and they are not an offer from us to you", but surely the fact that the order was confirmed and they money withdrawn from my account constitutes them accepting the offer??

I would appreciate anyones help or opinion on the matter.

Thanks.

eagle_&_bear

speak to a solicitor, or else look at any Irish contract law book on the matter.

specifically, on the issue of OFFER and ACCEPTANCE which appears to be satisfied here.

On the issue of an Invitation to treat, that must relate to their catalogue and their advertisements therein, however, there are provisions where an invitation to treat can be make into an offer as long as the wording is precise and definite. Unfortunately I can not go any further on the matter.

You should speak to a solicitor if you are concerned.

No practitioner on this site can give you legal advice

Jev/N

The poster above forgot to mention mistake (unilateral or mutual here) which more often than not has the effect of vitiating any possible contractual agreement.

At any rate, I wouldn't agree with the sentiments that an online 'invitation to treat' could be converted into a (unilateral) offer, which you could accept. This is plainly dealt with in the T&C's, as I am nearly sure, is the fact that they can withdraw from a contract founded on mistake (in this case, their error in the advertised price)

Mary Hairy

It seems to me that there was offer an acceptance. The O/p offered €40. It was accepted. the company can only rely on mistake. they would have to show that there was a mistake and that the o/p knew of it and took advantage of it. Well worth an outing to the small claims court.

Jev/N

Mary Hairy wrote: »

It seems to me that there was offer an acceptance. The O/p offered €40. It was accepted. the company can only rely on mistake. they would have to show that there was a mistake and that the o/p knew of it and took advantage of it. Well worth an outing to the small claims court.

Express knowledge of mistake isn't necessary...

Anyway, this has already been dealt with over on the consumer issues forum where all were in agreement over the fact that the OP has little or no comeback in such a situation.

Yes, it would be possible to go to the SCC over this, but I would imagine many of your arguments would, as I already mentioned above, probably be fruitless owing to the T&C's which Meteor employ

32minutes

without knowing much about the t&c's from a purely contract sense; actual notice of a mistake isn't necessary, constructive notice has been implied in a number of cases (again can't remember names but there was one in asia where a guy bought 100 printers for something like 10% of the normal cost in a similar situation and the judge found that it was void on mistake).

the facts here with meteor is interesting enough though because it could be argued with the types of offers that mobile providers often give make this seem like a reasonable deal.

dont think it matters much seeing as how the contract was concluded but i would definitely consider it an invitation to treat

MrPudding

32minutes wrote: »

without knowing much about the t&c's from a purely contract sense; actual notice of a mistake isn't necessary, constructive notice has been implied in a number of cases (again can't remember names but there was one in asia where a guy bought 100 printers for something like 10% of the normal cost in a similar situation and the judge found that it was void on mistake).

I seem to recall it was quite clear in this case the buyer knew exactly what was going on. Can't remember the name myself though...

MrP

Jev/N

MrPudding wrote: »

I seem to recall it was quite clear in this case the buyer knew exactly what was going on. Can't remember the name myself though...

MrP

It was Cwee Kon Chee v Digilandmall.com (sorry for the spelling!)

MrPudding

Jev/N wrote: »

It was Cwee Kon Chee v Digilandmall.com (sorry for the spelling!)

Almost correct…:D

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd

The facts briefly:

Singapore Court of Appeal wrote:

The respondent was a company that sold information technology products across the internet. As part of its business it operated a website owned by Hewlett Packard and its own website ('the Digilandmall website'). On 8 January 2003 employees of an entity related to the respondent, Digiland International Ltd ('DIL'), were undergoing a training session at the respondent's premises. A DIL employee inadvertently loaded contents of the training template onto the Digiland commerce website, which then automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. As a result of the mistake the price of the laser printer 'HPC 9660A Color Laserjet 4600' was advertised at the wrong price of $66. The actual price was $3,854. All six appellants were graduates conversant with the usage of the internet and its practices, and endowed with more than an adequate understanding of business and commercial practices. There were various communications between the six appellants on 13 January 2003, including a comment from a third party to the first appellant that he thought the price of the printers was the 'wrong posted price'. In the early hours of 13 January 2003 the six appellants placed orders over the internet for 1,606 of the printers. Confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the appellants through e-mail. When the respondent learnt of the error the advertisement was promptly removed from the websites and the appellants, as well as 778 other buyers of the printers, were informed that the price posting was an error and that the respondents would not be meeting the orders. The appellants collectively and individually maintained that while they thought the price of $66 was a good deal, they did not think that the website prices had been mistakenly placed or inserted. The appellants brought legal proceedings seeking enforcement of the contracts. It was submitted on behalf
[2006] 1 LRC 37 at 38
of the appellants that the contract was binding and one which the respondent was obliged to honour. The High Court dismissed the action, holding that the contracts were void because the appellants had actual, or alternatively constructive, knowledge of the respondent's mistake. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The main issue in the proceedings was the level of knowledge possessed and/or belief entertained by each of the appellants when they entered into each of the transactions for the purchase of the laser printers. The appellants also contended that the High Court had erred in awarding the respondent the full costs of the trial as there were several issues at trial on which the respondent had not succeeded.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. Costs order set aside and order for reduced amount of costs substituted.

I this case it was fairly clear the buyers knew exactly what they were doing. In cases where the mistake is not so obvious I think there can be more complication.

Was it Amazon that had some issues over the pricing of a digital camera?

MrP