The Student Room Group

Problem with paying a deposit - question style!

I have recently payed a deposit on a suit that was not in stock. The owner of the shop is now claiming he underpriced it by accident and wants an extra £100.

He says that I can have my deposit back if I don't want to pay the extra.

Can I hold him to the original price that we entered into a contract to pay?

I have thought about case law involving mistakes and have come up with Tamplin V James and Smith V Hughes but the latter is not really relevant.

Anyone know what the position is?
Reply 1
According to this consumer affairs website:
www.consumerline.org

"Sometimes a trader may make a genuine mistake and put the wrong price on an item. For example, a coat which he intends selling at £99.99 may have been marked at £9.99. In such a situation you have no right to insist that the trader sells you the coat at the marked price."

It also says

"You cannot make a shop sell you anything if it does not want to. In civil law when goods are priced and are on display in a shop this is called “an invitation to treat.” This means that the shop is inviting you the customer to make an offer to buy the goods. It is up to the shop if it will or will not accept your offer.
However the shop may have committed a criminal offence in that it has goods for sale at a price at which they are not available. If you are unhappy at how the shop is displaying prices which may be misleading you should contact the Trading Standards Service which can investigate such complaints."

I know that that info isn't really really the same as your situation, hope its of some help though.
Reply 2
Mark_KK
I have recently payed a deposit on a suit that was not in stock. The owner of the shop is now claiming he underpriced it by accident and wants an extra £100.

He says that I can have my deposit back if I don't want to pay the extra.

Can I hold him to the original price that we entered into a contract to pay?

I have thought about case law involving mistakes and have come up with Tamplin V James and Smith V Hughes but the latter is not really relevant.

Anyone know what the position is?


You're on the right trail. Consider the objective principle in offer and acceptance: parties will be held to their objective intentions; the classic formulation of this principle being found in Smith v. Hughes (1871). Yet the existence of a contract depends on the state of mind of the offeree in acceptance, and to this extent the test is subjective. The leading cases here are The Hannah Blumenthal (1983) and Hartog v. Collins and Shields (1939): they assert that if the offeree actually knew of the offeror's mistake (subjective intention) then the offeror will not be bound by the acceptance. The offeree is not permitted to "snatch at a bargain". Centrovincial Estates v. Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd (1983) implied that this doctrine applied even where the offeree did not have actual knowledge of the offeror's mistake/subjective intentions, but reasonably ought to have had such knowledge. In the case of your suit, it could be argued that if he initially charged you £1 and you did not know of his subjective intentions/mistake, you reasonably ought to have known and that your acceptance is not effective to bring into existence a contract. This argument would be very weak, however, where he initially charged £300 and is now demanding £400.

Latest