Tesco TV Price

[sta0612]

First of all, apologies if this is in the wrong Sub-forum, I couldn't really think where else to post it.

I was browsing through the current Tesco Direct catalogue earlier and noticed a 26" HD digital TV listed at £2.97 (an obvious misprint). However, I've heard before that if an item is labelled with the wrong price and the listed price is lower than the intended selling price the retailer has to sell the item to you at that price. I know it seems hopeful and a company as big as Tesco are bound to find a way to cover their tracks even if it is true but out of interest, is there any validity in this claim? And more to the point, is there any chance in hell I could buy this TV for £2.97? :p:

[kryogenik]

I think you'll find if you look about there'll be some wording in the terms and conditions saying they have the right to cancel the order for various reasons.
Nothing wrong with giving it a go. They'll refund you if they don't honour it. Nothing to lose?

:edit:

http://direct.tesco.com/help/directtermsandconditions.aspx

If, by mistake, we have under priced an item, we will not be liable to supply that item to you at the stated price, provided that we notify you before we despatch the item to you. In those circumstances, we will notify the correct price to you so you can decide whether or not you wish to order the item at that price. If you decide not to order the item, we will give you a full refund on any amount already paid for that item in accordance with our refund policy..

[AntiSilence]

If the price difference is blatant and obvious, like what you describe (eg a TV that could be £2000 printed as £2.00) then no, you won't get it for that price as the retailer has a right to not sell it.

[zing_deleted]

I think you'll find if you look about there'll be some wording in the terms and conditions saying they have the right to cancel the order for various reasons.
Nothing wrong with giving it a go. They'll refund you if they don't honour it. Nothing to lose?

:edit:

http://direct.tesco.com/help/directtermsandconditions.aspx

that does not fall in with trade law iirc. Once the cash has been taken then that constitutes a contract and anything the store adds isnt enforcable I think

I do not think their point 4 is actually compliant with law. An offer to sell is the advertised price they do not have to let you have the product for that price. The taking of monies is a binding contract and I would hope fightable in the courts. Terms and conditions do not replace the sustomers position in law the law is the law. I spose they argue that you agree when you put the order in though.

[kryogenik]

Yeah, I think they'd probably say something along the lines of by ordering you've read & agree with their t & c's.

[SMHarman]

No the item is an invitation to treat. When you go to buy it you make an offer to buy it. That offer can be declined or accepted by the retailer.
Offer and acceptance and consideration the three parts of a contract, the invitation you are looking at is not.
http://www.gillhams.com/articles/200.cfm
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV1011-1111.txt

The case law that set this out is Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists Southern Ltd back in 1953.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v._Boots_C ash_Chemists_%28Southern%29_Ltd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat
Might also help

[zing_deleted]

If a consumer orders goods, the trader accepts the order and the price is agreed, but later the trader says the price has gone up, the consumer should only have to pay the price given at the time the order was placed or, alternatively, the consumer could cancel the order. Some contracts where goods are supplied as part of a service, such as double glazing, include clauses stating that the price may be subject to change after a 'survey' has been carried out. If a consumer is not happy with the revised price, the order can usually be cancelled.

From trading standards. My understanding is the price is agreed once payment is taken. By rights the retailer should not take cash till the time of dispatch the fact Tescos and a lot of other retailers take the cash automatically is an error on their part and by rights should hold them open to litigation when these price errors occur

[SMHarman]

It's an interesting point.
The old shopping cart system I used to run used to do a Pre_Auth and Post_Auth separately so when you ordered the goods the transaction was pre_auth to check the card had funds and those funds were then locked up for 7 days.
When you hit ship the post_auth occurred and the money was taken.
The new carts combine pre and post auth into one auth, actually something that is not allowed in a US Credit Card Merchant Agreement.
Many t&c's now state that the confirmation email is not an acceptance of an offer and that the shipping email is the acceptance email.
It's all moot as if this really was chased through court the retailer would win as that would be the right decision on the grounds of equity and all those other tennets of law.

[bob_a_builder]

Now lets think about it for a moment ...

sta0612 (or your average joe customer) or Tescos

I wonder whos going to be able to hire the most/better lawyers

££££ usually beats barrack room every time

[Graham M]

Which page is this on out of interest? I can't find it!

[zing_deleted]

It's an interesting point.
The old shopping cart system I used to run used to do a Pre_Auth and Post_Auth separately so when you ordered the goods the transaction was pre_auth to check the card had funds and those funds were then locked up for 7 days.
When you hit ship the post_auth occurred and the money was taken.
The new carts combine pre and post auth into one auth, actually something that is not allowed in a US Credit Card Merchant Agreement.
Many t&c's now state that the confirmation email is not an acceptance of an offer and that the shipping email is the acceptance email.
It's all moot as if this really was chased through court the retailer would win as that would be the right decision on the grounds of equity and all those other tennets of law.

But surely terms and conditions set by someone can not actually override law as law is law isnt it? its like if I laid out terms and conditions saying if customers bought a product off me and it was faulty I will not replace it and if the agreed to these terms by ticking buy now im sure I couldnt hold that up. A confirmation emai I agree isnt binding but from how i read the law taking my money is a binding contract.

[sta0612]

Thank you all for the quick responses, I wasn't expecting so many. You all seem quite knowledgeable in the area, however, the contrasting opinions shown confused me even more I'm afraid lol.

One thing I (quite naively) forgot to add in my initial post was I looked the item up online and read this:

"Technika LCD26-207 26" HD Digital LCD TV

Catalogue number: 202-1533

We apologise that the incorrect price has been printed in the catalogue. The correct price is £299.97."

This presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) rules out the option of ordering online as the price has been adjusted. However, is there still any chance of getting the TV for the catalogue price over the phone/in store?

[Graham M]

Haha found it, classic :)

[SMHarman]

Thank you all for the quick responses, I wasn't expecting so many. You all seem quite knowledgeable in the area, however, the contrasting opinions shown confused me even more I'm afraid lol.

One thing I (quite naively) forgot to add in my initial post was I looked the item up online and read this:

"Technika LCD26-207 26" HD Digital LCD TV

Catalogue number: 202-1533

We apologise that the incorrect price has been printed in the catalogue. The correct price is £299.97."

This presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) rules out the option of ordering online as the price has been adjusted. However, is there still any chance of getting the TV for the catalogue price over the phone/in store?None. The catalog is an invitation. You could go in and make an offer of 2.97 and unless they accept that offer and you then pay that 2.97 consideration you are SOL as without them accepting your offer which is what happens at the checkout you cannot give them consideration and you cannot create a contract.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

But surely terms and conditions set by someone can not actually override law as law is law isnt it? its like if I laid out terms and conditions saying if customers bought a product off me and it was faulty I will not replace it and if the agreed to these terms by ticking buy now im sure I couldnt hold that up. A confirmation emai I agree isnt binding but from how i read the law taking my money is a binding contract.Yeah but... As a retailer I do not get your money at the time the transaction occurred. In fact if I go to my credit card control module within the next 48 hours and void your transaction it will in most cases never appear on your credit card bill.
After that 48 hours the money will be transferred to my bank account. At that point it would be easier to argue offer, acceptance and consideration.
The law was written to cover face to face transactions, not human to machine transactions. Most retailers have applied it fairly in the .com world, the it should have been 110 and I typoed it to 101 so I will take the hit, but expecting a TV for less than a gallon of petrol well nobody could consider that reasonable.
You are also obviously correct that T&C cannot override law Unfair Contract Terms are also subject to exclusion.
The confirmation that goes from my shopping cart says processed. The next status is either accepted or shipped, if I had to argue this in court I would start with the argument that the first state is a machine driven state, accepted or shipped is where the human intervention of acceptance of the offer occurs.