wrong price charged

[gina32]

i ordered an item from next online for £32 but when i went to the checkout it came up as £35, i emailed them and received a reply saying that the price is the one at the checkout and that if i didnt want the item i have the choice to refuse it at that price. i was under the imperssion that its not legal to advertise one price but then charge a higher price, who is right? thanks

[pink-kittens]

Who's right? They are

Call them though - Next are pretty good at refunds. Emails will get you nowhere

[gina32]

I DID AND THEY SAID I HAVE TO PAY THE UPPER PRICE. I THOUGHT IT WASNT ALLOWED TO SYA ONE PRICE AND THEN CHARGE A HIGHER ONE, OTHERWISE WE COULD ALL GO FOR OUR SHOPPING THINK ITS £20 AND END UP PAYING £60 IF THEY CHOSE!!

[Gmcd01]

There's a marked difference between a genuine single mistake (which happen, as per here) and supermarkets that might purposely hide charges, which, yes, would be illegal. All prices must be displayed, so if one goes into a supermarket face to face, and there is a discrepancy, the customer would let the shop know immediately about it. Thus, there should only be a mistake for a very short period of time. Distance selling online is a different matter. Some people might just cancel the purchase and some may take a time to email the mistake to the retailer. The retailer may also take time to respond electronically. However, since you say you've put them on notice about it, they should amend the price within a reasonable time- and remember that a customer service person can't alter a website in the way a shop assistant can remove a price tag. If you feel they're deliberately undercharging in such a way, contact Trading Standards.
There's no need to shout. The first reply mentions calling, not emailing, which you didn't say you did.

[ojread2]

The 'law' you refer, or think you are referring to was changed a few years ago
If the price advertised is cheaper than you have been charged, the company does not have to give it too you at the cheaper price.
If you were in store, they may well have given it too you for the price you saw but they don't have to. If they do it would be a matter of customer service, not law

[Gmcd01]

I don't believe that the law was changed- this is a fairly old legal principle, established in the landmark case of Fisher v Bell, about 50 years ago. A price on an item is not an offer to sale, it is an 'invitation to treat'. When the consumer takes the item to the checkout, they are implicitly offering to buy the item at said price, and the seller can either implicitly accept the offer by taking the money, or refuse to sell at that price. There's nothing illegal or unlawful about a refusal to enter into a contract.

[ABerrant]

There is an added dimension to internet shopping that the 'checkout' stage is not necessarily the point at which the contract is formed. In accordance with the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 (which may be the "law" ojread2 was alluding to), the contract may not exist until as late in the process as despatch of the ordered item provided the T&Cs of a website states as much within its explanation of contract formation.

[Gmcd01]

Things like that are useful to know (I work in IP rather than specific contract law), but I'm not convinced that it helps answer the original question as to whether one is obligated to enter into any contract in the first place (whenever formed) by virtue of an incorrect price. I'll certainly have a read of the regulations though.

[ABerrant]

Gmcd01 - Regardless of the original question, my reply was fully intended to extend the point that you made. There is no obligation to enter into a contract and contract acceptance via internet may occur later than we usually expect as in the example of High Street shopping.

[Gmcd01]

That's alright then, just checking I wasn't being dumb :-)