A word of warning, was:- ER40 Backplate mounted chuck

>>> I'll respond to a couple of points here,though.
>>>
>>> First, my reason for raising the fact that I had phoned in January was
>>> mainly to show that I had not simply rung two months after the
>>> publication and expected a price advertised in December. It was no
>>> huge surprise that I didn't get my call returned, yours is certainly
>>> not the only organisation guilty of that sin <G>. When I did get
>>> through to your office this month, my first question was whether the
>>> chuck was still available at the offer price, I was very pleased to
>>> learn that it was.
>>>
>>> Second, I do not see how you can duck out of a verbal agreement made
>>> with one of your staff. I did not even know of the existence of the
>>> smaller 100mm diameter chuck until I spoke to him, as the advert only
>>> refers to the 125mm chuck. There is absolutely no way that I would
>>> have ordered two chucks at £39+ each.
>>>
>>> Third, although I am generally very mild-mannered I had been angered
>>> by the turn of the conversation and the continual doubt cast on my
>>> word.

>>
>> You have two options in law - return the chucks under the DSR, if you are
>> a private individual. You do not have to give any reason for this, and
>> whether your word is in doubt or not is irrelevant. The seller then has to
>> refund the price of the goods and forward carriage within 30 days, and
>> cannot charge a restocking fee or insist on a credit note. That's the law.
>> You will probably have to arrange and pay for return carriage though.
>>
>> Your second option is to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act. You
>> have to give a reason for this, but in this case it's pretty obvious that
>> the contract was flawed, as the price charged was not the price quoted.
>> The value of your word does come into this, but it does not seem
>> reasonable to doubt your word, under the circumstances.

>
> There's no reason in law why the purchaser can't keep the chucks and sue for
> the amount he has been overcharged by. A valid contract has been established
> and whether it was verbal or not matters not a jot. All that affects is the
> evidence that the parties could put before a court and in this case a judge
> would have to decide on balance of probabilities who was telling the truth.
> If the seller's employee who entered into the contract made a mistake about
> the current price that's his fault but the purchaser is entitled to take it
> that the employee who is quoting prices to him is acting within his
> authority i.e intra vires rather than ultra vires.