By the way Steve concerning your last post, as you mention Argos Online, please see below the clause taken from the Argos Terms and Conditions
4.2 The price you pay is the price displayed on this website at the time we receive your order apart from the following two exceptions:
a) For products reserved online for store pick up or any other reservation service the price you pay is the price in store on the day of collection.
b) While we try and ensure that all prices on our website are accurate, errors may occur. If we discover an error in the price of goods you have ordered we will inform you as soon as possible and give you the option of reconfirming your order at the correct price or cancelling it. If we are unable to contact you we will treat the order as cancelled. If you cancel and you have already paid for the goods, you will receive a full refund
Obviously they can, and do, put clauses to protect themselves from price errors in their contracts. I think that this rather refutes your entire argument.
Simon
Nonsense Simon, Perhaps you haven’t taken the time to read the last four or five posts which I have made on the matter. The part of the Argos T&C which you post reinforces the points which I have raised and certainly doesn’t ‘refute’ them as you suggest.
Simon, I think that you will find, if you read their T&C carefully, that they state that no contract is entered into at the moment the client places an order even if payment is taken. This gives Argos time to review and reject pending orders if the price is wrong. Earlier pricing errors were enforceable by clients because the various firms issued conformations, instantaneously, which confirmed that orders had been ‘accepted’.
This is the section on ‘Order Process’ taken from the same T&C which you have also quoted from;
2. Order process
2.1 Please see the Home delivery information and How to use this website section for information on how to place an order. All orders that you place on this website will be subject to acceptance in accordance with these terms and conditions.
2.2 The 'confirmation' stage sets out the final details of your order. Following this, we will send to you an order acknowledgement email detailing the products you have ordered. Please note that this email is not an order confirmation or order acceptance from Argos.
2.3 Acceptance of your order and the completion of the contract between you and us will take place on despatch to you of the products ordered unless we have notified you that we do not accept your order or you have cancelled it (please refer to Returns and refunds).
Also;
4.4 Title to any products you order on this website shall pass to you on delivery of the products provided that we have processed and received payment in full for the products.
I hope that you can see how the firm have circumvented the problem of pricing errors? They simply keep ALL orders as ‘unaccepted offers’ until they are ready to dispatch the items. Term 2.2 clearly states that emails confirming orders does not constitute ‘acceptance’ with Term 2.3 clearly stating at what point a contract is legally formed. Term 4.4 clearly illustrates the points I have made in previous posts regarding ‘legal title’. The point which you seem to be missing is the point at which CS actually form a contract, in regard to the individual bets, with its clients. Argos gets around the ‘pricing issue’ by not forming a contract with their clients at the time the clients place their orders. Meanwhile you seem to be arguing that you can ‘cancel’ bets AFTER acceptance has occurred – you then quote a section of Argos T&C (out of context since the Terms of section 2 are vital in setting out the framework as to when a contract is actually formed) which you imply is doing the same thing when in fact they’re not. The terms which you post are merely demonstrating Argos’s rights to reject clients ‘offer to contract’ which has yet be accepted. At no point do Argos appear to be claiming a right to cancel or reject an order after acceptance has occurred.
Their use of their terms and conditions appears fair and unbiased. Whilst the firm keeps orders on its systems in an unaccepted state the client retains the right to withdraw that order and therefore the T&C don’t cause an imbalance in the rights of the clients. All they are really doing in the T&C is moving the point of acceptance and therefore removing the grey area of potential ‘implied contract’. An issue known as ‘Behavioural Acceptance’ is recognised in law. When you walk into a shop for a sandwich at lunchtime you might pick up a pack of BLT and plonk it on the counter along with a drink. The cashier might then type the cost of the items into the till without so much as a word. You then hand over a fiver and wait for your change. At that point ‘behavioural acceptance’ has occurred; the cashier, acting on behalf of the business, has accepted your offer to buy the items at the prices indicated on them. At no point did the cashier actually utter the words “Trade accepted” and subsequently reiterate the terms of the contract back to you yet a contract was formed. My point is that it is legitimate for a firm like Argos to clarify, through its T&C, that there is no such behavioural acceptance in simply taking an order onto its system even if money changes hands. Again, in early cases of internet price errors, firms were forced to deliver goods to clients due to implied contracts brought about by behavioural acceptance mainly caused by the processing of payments.
The problem which you have with is a spread bet error is fact that the contract is already formed before you notice that an error has been made. By that time ‘legal title’ of the position / contract has passed from yourselves to the client. Legally speaking you cannot just snatch that legal title back just because your back-office systems allow you to do it. It could be determined that doing that was ‘Theft’ from a legal perspective.
I should point out that, having written all of these posts, I don’t actually have a gripe with CS or indeed any spreadbetting firm. I’m just very interested in these legal matters and don’t like to see clients bullied.
Simon, I don’t want this to come across as an attack on CS or indeed you. It’s just that you are the only one who is up for the challenge of sparring with clients on a message board!
Take care,
Steve.
