Buying at Zero Value

Gonzales24

hi there.
i stumbled on an Irish internet shop for hardware, by mistake they advertised a laptop for €0.00. i bought it, paid the delivery fees, got invoiced and got acknowledgement of the transaction from the company.
after when realizing the mistake, the company without any notification refunded my shipment money and told they cant sell for zero value.
so far i understand, it should be there problem, not mine.
where do i stand legally to get my bought product??

hope for some good advise.
you all rock

chops018

Gonzales24 wrote: »

hi there.
i stumbled on an Irish internet shop for hardware, by mistake they advertised a laptop for €0.00. i bought it, paid the delivery fees, got invoiced and got acknowledgement of the transaction from the company.
after when realizing the mistake, the company without any notification refunded my shipment money and told they cant sell for zero value.
so far i understand, it should be there problem, not mine.
where do i stand legally to get my bought product??

hope for some good advise.
you all rock

There has to be consideration moving from one party to the other, doesn't seem you provided sufficient consideration for the promise and so there isn't a contract. Doesn't look good from you're perspective, it would be inequitable to make them give you the laptop for €0.00. Also they refunded the shipment money and put you back in the situation you were in before the transaction so I doubt there is anything you can do!

Gonzales24

1. Applicable Law and Place where Contract is formed

No contract shall be concluded between you and Shop.BMS.ie* for the sale by Shop.BMS.ie* to you of any product unless and until Shop.BMS.ie* accepts your order by e-mail. Shop.BMS.ie* acceptance of your order shall be deemed complete and will be deemed for all purposes to have been effectively communicated to you at the time Shop.BMS.ie* sends a confirmation e-mail to you (whether or not you receive that e-mail). For the avoidance of doubt, any such contract will be deemed to have been concluded in Ireland. Further, any such contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of Ireland, and you and Shop.BMS.ie* irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Irish Courts.

they send me a acknowledgement email.

chops018

Gonzales24 wrote: »

1. Applicable Law and Place where Contract is formed

No contract shall be concluded between you and Shop.BMS.ie* for the sale by Shop.BMS.ie* to you of any product unless and until Shop.BMS.ie* accepts your order by e-mail. Shop.BMS.ie* acceptance of your order shall be deemed complete and will be deemed for all purposes to have been effectively communicated to you at the time Shop.BMS.ie* sends a confirmation e-mail to you (whether or not you receive that e-mail). For the avoidance of doubt, any such contract will be deemed to have been concluded in Ireland. Further, any such contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of Ireland, and you and Shop.BMS.ie* irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Irish Courts.

they send me a acknowledgement email.

All that goes out the window if there was no consideration provided on your part, I don't think that shipment money would be construed as valid consideration. In any event an offer on a website is just an invitation to treat, it is an offer for you to make an offer in which they can refuse to accept.

It doesn't matter about the above terms and conditions saying that the contract is concluded with the e-mail acknowledgement, if you sought specific performance of the contract I'd say it would fail, a court would find it inequitable to force the contract, especially when you don't appear to have suffered any detriment i.e. they gave you your shipment money back.

source

Have a read of this: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/InvitationtoTreat.aspx basically the price displayed is the online shop stating that they're willing to take offers for the item.

You offered €0.00, they rejected the offer, no contract was in place to be broken.

Gonzales24

source wrote: »

Have a read of this: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/InvitationtoTreat.aspx basically the price displayed is the online shop stating that they're willing to take offers for the item.

You offered €0.00, they rejected the offer, no contract was in place to be broken.

its not an auction house, its an online shop, by mistake they updated the price to €0.00 same as you would go to shop, and the price would be displayed €0.00
i took it, it did cost me 18€ to deliver. then seller found out, didnt give me my product, but returned money.

source

Gonzales24 wrote: »

source wrote: »

Have a read of this: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/InvitationtoTreat.aspx basically the price displayed is the online shop stating that they're willing to take offers for the item.

You offered €0.00, they rejected the offer, no contract was in place to be broken.

its not an auction house, its an online shop, by mistake they updated the price to €0.00 same as you would go to shop, and the price would be displayed €0.00
i took it, it did cost me 18€ to deliver. then seller found out, didnt give me my product, but returned money.

Invitation to treat applies to all retail transactions, until the seller agrees with the price no contract exists.

It doesn't matter what permutations or combinations you try to apply to it, the fact remains, the invitation to treat was €0.00, you offered €0.00 the seller refused your offer. It's really quite simple.

chops018

source wrote: »

Invitation to treat applies to all retail transactions, until the seller agrees with the price no contract exists.

It doesn't matter what permutations or combinations you try to apply to it, the fact remains, the invitation to treat was €0.00, you offered €0.00 the seller refused your offer. It's really quite simple.

Nice and simply explained, I think I went a bit too technical and a bit too deep, but that above is basically it in a nutshell. If they didn't refund your shipment money then you would have grounds to complain.

Gonzales24

thanks a lot..
and thanks for the quick replies

BornToKill

Similar and quite interesting on this topic:

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/30117.html

Milk & Honey

source wrote: »

Invitation to treat applies to all retail transactions, until the seller agrees with the price no contract exists.

It doesn't matter what permutations or combinations you try to apply to it, the fact remains, the invitation to treat was €0.00, you offered €0.00 the seller refused your offer. It's really quite simple.

There was an acceptance at 0.00 so it is not an invitation to treat case. The problem for the o/p is that there must be consideration moving from the o/p. O.oo is nil so no consideration so a valid contract cannot be formed.

chops018

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There was an acceptance at 0.00 so it is not an invitation to treat case. The problem for the o/p is that there must be consideration moving from the o/p. O.oo is nil so no consideration so a valid contract cannot be formed.

Agreed, that's what I said earlier. No valid contract.

Procrastastudy

The issue of consideration is correct - but if the scenario was the item was offered for €1 I believe the e-commerce act 2000 would override the offer and acceptance issues. That would be my - poor - understanding.

Also I've finished my contract exams so this wont even be giving me free marks! :eek:

jblack

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There was an acceptance at 0.00 so it is not an invitation to treat case. The problem for the o/p is that there must be consideration moving from the o/p. O.oo is nil so no consideration so a valid contract cannot be formed.

Not an absolute rule, aside from any selling regs etc, there may have been an act of detriment by the o/p that would be sufficient as consideration.

Marcusm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There was an acceptance at 0.00 so it is not an invitation to treat case. The problem for the o/p is that there must be consideration moving from the o/p. O.oo is nil so no consideration so a valid contract cannot be formed.

What about the delivery costs? If it could be establshed that there was no severable contract for delivery or where it could be established that the delivery costs were less than the delivery carge, might that in effect be regarded as contributing to consideration.

valleyoftheunos

The actual issue here isn't whether there is a valid contract but whether the contract is void for mistake, ie the Sellers somewhat obvious mistake in pricing the laptop at €0. the law is not certain in relation to mistakes and e commerce and there has been no clear judgement, however as the OP was aware of the seller's mistake at the time of entering into the contract the contract is void, thus, no laptop for free.

Sorry OP

chops018

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

The actual issue here isn't whether there is a valid contract but whether the contract is void for mistake, ie the Sellers somewhat obvious mistake in pricing the laptop at €0. the law is not certain in relation to mistakes and e commerce and there has been no clear judgement, however as the OP was aware of the seller's mistake at the time of entering into the contract the contract is void, thus, no laptop for free.

Sorry OP

As stated above by myself and other contributors - there is issues with no consideration and also mistake. It might not be certain which one would prevail, but what is certain: the rules of contract law and equity would not allow there to be a valid contract here.