Help with contract law

Paisley

Hi

I am trying to get a few things clear in my mind from a legal point of view and not from a moral one.

(a) If a shop displays an item at an incorrect price - what rights do the seller and the customer have when the correct price is realised at the checkout?

(b) If a customer in a shop knows they are being undercharged, but the price is accepted and paid for at the checkout - what rights do the seller and the customer have after the sale has taken place, when the shop realises their mistake?

(c) If goods are ordered and are delivered to a customer, the delivery note states that any discrepancies must be notified within a certain period, that period passes and the customer decides not to pay, saying that the goods are faulty - what rights do the seller and the customer have?

I think what's clouding my judgement is a combination of my own shopping experiences and having worked in retail in the past.

Any help would be much appreciated!

sama

I've just started ACCA after finishing AAT and I'm studying for the law exam. This is just to let you know how credible my answer is. (not really, just trying to figure it out myself).
So for (a) I can say that goods in a shop window are invitations for the customer to make an offer. He walks up to the checkout and makes an offer at the price displayed. The cashier can either refuse or accept the offer. Until this acceptance the price displayed is not binding. It is not an offer in a legal sense, it can't be accepted and turned into a binding contract.

For (b) I don't think the seller has any rights after the transaction. The contract has been finished - offer made by customer, accepted by cashier and both carried out what the contract required them to do. I don't think they can go back and change anything about it.

for (c), I don't know. I'd be curious to see what others think about this.

Paisley

Thank you Sama

(a) - I would agree with you in that the price displayed is just an invitation to treat, which can be refused or accepted by the cashier, and that there is no legally binding contract in place.

(b) - I also agree with your answer - it's too late, the contract has already taken place.

(c) - I'm curious too

Thanks very much for your response

Best wishes with your ACCA studies.

Monsoon

Agree with A & B. C, not sure either!

I would say it depends on the more detailed terms and conditions, and if they contradict statutory rights, then statutory legal rights take precedence. I would like to think the retailer has the right to say tough luck, but I don't know

janwal

Agree with the first two, for c) I beleive that if a item is not fit for purpose you have a right to return outside the suppliers normal return policy unless they can prove normal wear and tear.

Could be wrong so don't take that as gospel.

Jan

Monsoon

janwal wrote: »

Agree with the first two, for c) I beleive that if a item is not fit for purpose you have a right to return outside the suppliers normal return policy unless they can prove normal wear and tear.

Actually that does ring a bell. However, the 'not fit for purpose' would have to be notified in a reasonable time, and it would have to be proveable, I would have thought. If it was a perishable item e.g. food, and it was notified long after it would have gone off anyway, then I can't see how it was enforceable. But then, the law isn't always logical or fair...

Paisley

Thank you Monsoon and Jan

So after more reading...

A contract normally contains certain terms which must be fulfilled as part of the agreement. If a person breaks one of those terms, that person is in breach of contract. For example, if a supplier undertakes to supply goods, it must send the goods on the due date, and in turn expects the goods to be paid for by a certain time. If the customer does not pay, he or she is in breach of contract and may be taken to court for damages.

However...

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that you are entitled to expect any goods that you buy from a shop to be of 'satisfactory quality', 'fit for the purpose' and 'as described'. If any of these three conditions is not met, the purchaser is entitled to a full or a part refund, depending on how soon the fault appears, how serious it is and how quickly the matter is taken up.

So for (c) - I am thinking - if the terms stated on the delivery note (the notification period) are ignored, there is a breach of contract by the customer and so in theory the customer can be taken to court.

Monsoon

Paisley wrote: »

So for (c) - I am thinking - if the terms stated on the delivery note (the notification period) are ignored, there is a breach of contract by the customer and so in theory the customer can be taken to court.

Think you are right.

Put it anothey way - you buy some food from the co-op and 2 weeks after the best before date you take it back saying it's mouldy and was when you bought it. I really don't think they would take it back! I think the same would apply i.e. even though the customer hasn't paid, they took too long to notify that it wasn't good enough.

Paisley

Thank you Monsoon

I think a fresh approach is what I need.