Haha. Negative.Originally Posted by nodrog
Rider in training
Haha. Negative.
Forum whore
I would suggest (bowing to the professionally qualified ) that the precedent of Boots case referred to infra (upon which I have just refreshed my knowledge!) might readily be extended to cover internet transactions.
Boots Case refers to a case where Messrs Boots the well known pharmacists operated a cash pharmacy. Customers could select goods (like a modern supermarket) and take them to a counter for payment. However a pharmacist could, if he thought proper forbid the transaction upon the grounds of public good (poisons etc).
It was argued by the Pharmaceutical Society that the transaction was completed when the customer selected the goods . The High Court held, confirmed by the Court of Appeal, otherwise. The transaction was not complete until the money was paid over AND the pharmacist agreed.
So, in the case of the Internet, one may argue that the transaction is not complete until the money is paid over AND any conditions determined by the website are satisfied (for instance, the vendor might not be willing to deliver to a foreign country ).
Interestingly this decision was as recent as 1953.
Comment from professional members is invited
And, in passing , they might like also to comment (purely for my benefit, to settle an argument) on the suggestion that the Rule in Shelley's Case might be circumvented by the conveyance of the estate in a long term leasehold, at a pepper corn rental, with eventual reversion to the heirs (at which point of course Shelley's case would obtain)
Normally a contract is established by an offer and acceptance . The point at which the contract ceases to be voidable will depend on the terms of the contract (eg "I will buy your motorbike if you can deliver it by such a date" - the contract may be avoided if the delivery is not duly made, but the determination of that cannot be known until the specified date ).
None of this is relevant, however, if one of the parties is acting under a genuine and palpable error, since in that case no contract is actually formed . If I offer to buy your Honda motorcycle for $5000 and you accept, but , unknown to me you have two Hondas (how gay is that ?) , a CB250 and a CBR1000, and you believe that I am making an offer for the CB250, whilst I was offering to buy the CBR1000, then there is no contract at all. I offered to buy one motorcycle. You agreed to sell a different motorcycle. An offer for Motorcycle A cannot be accepted by agreement to sell motorcycle B. No contract, no deal.
The various provisions of the Contractual Mistakes Act extend the basic rule. A contract founded upon a genuine mistake is no contract.
Usually.
Forum whore
And thats a very big point. It seems that there are so many out there who are almost happy for traders to go bankrupt just so they can get a ''good deal''
Recovered workaholic.
Much easier just to quote myself.
If it wasn't for a concise set of rules, we might have to resort to common sense!
Forum whore
There is a peculiarity about the Boots case cited, which members may find interesting (well *I* think it's interesting , anyway).
Although usually cited as a reference case in Contract law, the action as originally brought was not primarily about contracts.
At the time , a law had been enacted saying that certain substances might "only be sold under the superintendance of a pharmacist".
Now the UK Pharmaceutical Society were very hostile to the 'Boots' company. Back then (I remember it being case here also when I was young), most pharmacys were run directly by the pharmacist. You did not walk in and help yourself and then go to a checkout and pay for the stuff as you do now (that is the Boots model). Instead all the products were hidden away behind the counter or in shop cases , and you asked the pharmacist for each thing you wanted. Pharmacies did not sell cosmetics and such then , only drugs, medicines, simples , trusses, bedpans , bandages and such like. The Boots company had meanwhile 'invented' what we would call a 'modern' pharmacy, where the customer collected what he wanted and took it up to a counter to pay.
The Pharmaceutical Society strongly opposed this model (mainly because it meant fewer pharmacists required). They brought a criminal action against Boots claiming that the latter were in breach of the law requiring that the Certain Substances only be sold "under the superintendance of a pharmacist".
Because, obviously, when the customer picked out his goods, there was no pharmacist nearby. But, said Boots, there *is* a pharmacist to hand at the checkout counter , and he supervises the sale there.
Not good enough said the Society. By then the sale has already taken place , it took place when the customer accepted your offer .They regarded the placing of the goods as setting up what is call a 'unilateral' contract , vide Carbolic Smoke Ball case, and argued that anyone could accept that offer by taking the goods off the shelf at which point there was a valid contract, and thus a sale, with no pharmacist in sight. Boots of course argued the contrary.
So, the whole of the criminal proceedings devolved down into an argument about when the goods were "sold", which in turn of course depended upon when the contract was settled. When the customer selected the offered goods? Or when the pharmacist approved the sale?
The learned judges agreed with Boots, which is why we have modern pharmacies (a state of affairs with which the NZ Ministry of Health still is not happy with BTW - I used to be associated with the pharmaceutical industry, which is where I first encountered the case).
So, a case brought under criminal law ended up being a precedent for contract law. Which I think very interesting.
Hardcore Biker
This taken from the Consumer Affairs website may answer a few points:
Displayed price incorrect
Traders do not have to sell goods at the displayed price. If the price is a mistake, a trader can refuse a consumer's offer to buy goods at the price on the tag.
eg Mona sees a sweatshirt in her favourite shop. The price tag says $30. When Mona takes the sweatshirt up to the counter to buy it, the shop realises the price tag is a mistake. The correct price is $75. The shop refuses to sell Mona the sweatshirt for $30. The shop can refuse to accept Mona's offer to buy the sweatshirt for $30.
However, a trader who continues to display prices which are much lower than the actual price at which they are willing to sell may be committing an offence under the Fair Trading Act. This is because they are misleading consumers about the true cost of goods.
Trader charges the wrong price
Once you have bought and paid for goods and services, the contract of sale is completed. This means that if the trader has charged you the wrong price, the trader cannot ask you to pay the balance.
If you learn you have been charged more than the ticket price only when you read your docket, you can ask to be paid the difference between the checkout price and the shelf price.
eg, Jo buys a new shirt. The price tag says $49.95 and this is the price she is charged. When Jo gets home the shop rings to say they have made a mistake - the correct price for the shirt was $69.95. The shop cannot ask Jo to pay the extra $20. They agreed to sell Jo the shirt for $49.95 and the sale has been completed. Jo would not have been aware that the price charged was a mistake.
There is one important exception to this rule. A trader may be able to demand more money from you if they can show that:
you must have been aware that there was a mistake about the price and
there was an "unequal exchange of value" - you paid a small amount for highly priced goods.
Over the counter sales law also applies to online sales within NZ.
For all you doubters out there, I did not go ahead with the deal and the dealer has thanked me for bringing it to their attention. the correct price is $11,500.00
Hardcore Biker
S'right. In the UK, it's called 'invitation to treat', and is part of contract law.
That is, the seller is actually inviting you to make an offer. When you say you want to buy at $11, that's you making the offer part of a contract, which the seller can then either accept or reject (most likely reject in this case, when he realises his mistake).
It's back..."Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Forum whore
Indeed. Always remember: People suck.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks