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

Model Engineering in UK - Model engineering, metal crafts in UK 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
A word of warning, was:- ER40 Backplate mounted chuck Tim Leech 02-13-2008
Posted by Dave Baker on February 14, 2008, 11:41 am
Please log in for more thread options

> I assumed that Chester's terms and conditions include a visible and
> available E&OE (errors and omissions excepted) clause - in which case the
> contract could or would be determined (ended) by the error.
>
> Maybe not though.

E&OE can protect a seller in respect of mistakes in a catalogue or
advertisement which constitute an 'offer to treat' rather than any binding
part of a contract. In other words the buyer phones up and says I want one
of those at the offer price and the seller says sorry it was a misprint.
However once the seller has entered into a contract, albeit at a mistaken
price, then the deal is done.

The same applies for example to shelf prices in shops which only constitute
an offer to treat until the employee has rung the price up on the till at
which point it becomes an acceptance of the customer's offer to pay and
binding.

What is actually happening in law in such cases is this. The seller's
advertised price is not actually an offer to sell to any prospective
customer or the world at large which they can be bound by simply by said
customer saying yes I'll have one. It's what the law calls an 'offer to
treat' which is an invitation to prospective customers to offer them either
that, or any other amount, for their goods. The customer saying he wants one
at the advertised price (or any other price) is actually the offer to buy
and the seller is then the one who either accepts or declines that offer.

The case is differentiated from that of two people bargaining directly with
each other when either can make the 'offer' - i.e. the seller saying I'll
sell you one of these for £x and the purchaser accepting or equally it
happening vice versa where the purchaser says I'll give you £y for one of
those and the seller accepts.

The reason for the differentiation in law is actually simple and logical. A
price list or advertisement, if considered in law to be a binding offer to
sell to the whole world at large, could force the seller to accept every
single acceptance he ever received from prospective customers despite the
price list being in error. He could be forced into bankruptcy by a pricing
error or simply be unable to supply as many goods as were requested.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines



Posted by David Littlewood on February 14, 2008, 12:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>Dave Baker wrote:

>> 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.
>
>I assumed that Chester's terms and conditions include a visible and
>available E&OE (errors and omissions excepted) clause - in which case
>the contract could or would be determined (ended) by the error.
>
>Maybe not though.
>
Not, I think. The E&OE bit prevents them from being held to a price
advertised in error. The leading case (IIRC called Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain v Boots the Chemist) held that advertising
goods at a price was not a contractual offer, but only an invitation to
the prospective purchaser to make an offer at that price, which would
become a contract when (and only if) accepted by seller. However, if the
seller confirms the "incorrect" price by accepting the offer, the
contract is thenceforth valid at that price.

(For the curious, the case above involved Boots trying, successfully, to
get off being prosecuted for displaying for sale certain pharmaceutical
products which were by law only allowed to be sold when a qualified
pharmacist was present. This fact may have had something to do with the
way it went, since it looks slightly surprising by the standards of
today's consumer-biased laws.)

In practice, getting redress for these small cases is likely to be more
trouble than it is worth, though making a small claim in the courts is
almost certain to succeed and carries little or no risk - in the
(exceedingly unlikely) event that you lose, the defendant can't recover
any legal costs, only modest travel etc. In practice most companies
realise it will cost them 10 or 100 times the amount in issue to send a
lawyer, so they cave at the last minute or don't turn up.

David
--
David Littlewood

Posted by Dave Baker on February 14, 2008, 10:57 am
Please log in for more thread options

Dear Mr Leach,

Just for your future reference, it myself whom you spoke to, my name
is Anthony.

I would first like to make the apology that when you called in January
there was no one available but the sales team were all working away
from home over the weekend in London supporting the Model Engineering
Exhibition at Alexandra Palace. Secondly I would like to apologise
that no one called you back upon our return but as other traders who
may visit this forum would tell you, post show is a very very busy
time sorting out orders, getting back organised, re-stocking, sorting
out back logs of work which has generated in the 2 or 3 day absence
from the office, as well as having skeleton staff for the most part of
the week after with people trying to catch up on a bit of family time
after being away from home for 4 days.

Recalling our conversation earlier in the week, you advised me that
you had been over charged on the collet chucks as you had seen them
advertised on the back of certain publications dated from December
which are now no longer valid and were not vaild when your order was
placed on the 6th February. You advised me that you had been verbally
quoted alternative prices but upon receiving your invoice found that
you had been over charged. I explained that, as the issues of the
publications were no longer valid and you had no proof of being quoted
these prices I was unable to re-credit your credit/debit card. I did
explain though that as a goodwill gesture, even though you could not
give proof of being quoted these prices, I would arrange for a credit
note to be put on to your account, as explained by my colleague
previously, which you refused to accept, or I presumed that was the
case after having the phone put down on me and abruptly ended the
call. This is after I had been given a verbal insult which has not
been mentioned in any prior post. The other option I gave was to
return the products to us and we will recredit your card minus a 10%
handling fee.

We are not in the business of upsetting customers, over charging
people and many other accusations which are occssionally thrown our
way. Within this company, we are all working people, whom all have
families and mortgages and other bills who come to work every day like
everyone else to try to earn a living, believe it or not, we are all
honest hard working people here.

I would like to make the offer still available to you, if you wish to
contact me personally then please do not hesitate to do so and I will
arrange for the credit note to be raised for you. Alternatively, as
you are not located a million miles away from us, if you had the time
or were in the area I would like to make it known that you are most
welcome to visit our showroom where I will personally speak to you,
over a coffee if required.

I would hope we can come to some amicable agreement as soon as
possible.

Regards

Anthony
Chester UK Limited

This is all well and good but it always surprises me why in the case of
small amounts, negligible to their business in fact, that companies don't
just sort things out as the customer wants and spread some goodwill rather
than the reverse. I have no doubt that a district judge in a small claims
court would find Tim's version of events entirely plausible and reasonable
and supported by the price quoted in the magazine and that he would end up
keeping both chucks and be awarded a refund of the overcharge plus costs.
Offering credit notes when you've already made a mistake and pissed someone
off is basically adding insult to injury in my book and a clear indication
that the company is more interested in a few extra quid sales than its
reputation.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines



Posted by Tony Jeffree on February 14, 2008, 11:07 am
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:

>This is all well and good but it always surprises me why in the case of
>small amounts, negligible to their business in fact, that companies don't
>just sort things out as the customer wants and spread some goodwill rather
>than the reverse. I have no doubt that a district judge in a small claims
>court would find Tim's version of events entirely plausible and reasonable
>and supported by the price quoted in the magazine and that he would end up
>keeping both chucks and be awarded a refund of the overcharge plus costs.
>Offering credit notes when you've already made a mistake and pissed someone
>off is basically adding insult to injury in my book and a clear indication
>that the company is more interested in a few extra quid sales than its
>reputation.

Dave -

I couldn't agree more. Especially unwise to piss off someone that is
well known and respected in the engineering community as well.

Regards,
Tony


Posted by David Littlewood on February 14, 2008, 12:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
writes
>
>Dear Mr Leach,
>
>Just for your future reference, it myself whom you spoke to, my name
>is Anthony.
>
>I would first like to make the apology that when you called in January
>there was no one available but the sales team were all working away
>from home over the weekend in London supporting the Model Engineering
>Exhibition at Alexandra Palace. Secondly I would like to apologise
>that no one called you back upon our return but as other traders who
>may visit this forum would tell you, post show is a very very busy
>time sorting out orders, getting back organised, re-stocking, sorting
>out back logs of work which has generated in the 2 or 3 day absence
>from the office, as well as having skeleton staff for the most part of
>the week after with people trying to catch up on a bit of family time
>after being away from home for 4 days.
>
>Recalling our conversation earlier in the week, you advised me that
>you had been over charged on the collet chucks as you had seen them
>advertised on the back of certain publications dated from December
>which are now no longer valid and were not vaild when your order was
>placed on the 6th February. You advised me that you had been verbally
>quoted alternative prices but upon receiving your invoice found that
>you had been over charged. I explained that, as the issues of the
>publications were no longer valid and you had no proof of being quoted
>these prices I was unable to re-credit your credit/debit card. I did
>explain though that as a goodwill gesture, even though you could not
>give proof of being quoted these prices, I would arrange for a credit
>note to be put on to your account, as explained by my colleague
>previously, which you refused to accept, or I presumed that was the
>case after having the phone put down on me and abruptly ended the
>call. This is after I had been given a verbal insult which has not
>been mentioned in any prior post. The other option I gave was to
>return the products to us and we will recredit your card minus a 10%
>handling fee.
>
>We are not in the business of upsetting customers, over charging
>people and many other accusations which are occssionally thrown our
>way. Within this company, we are all working people, whom all have
>families and mortgages and other bills who come to work every day like
>everyone else to try to earn a living, believe it or not, we are all
>honest hard working people here.
>
>I would like to make the offer still available to you, if you wish to
>contact me personally then please do not hesitate to do so and I will
>arrange for the credit note to be raised for you. Alternatively, as
>you are not located a million miles away from us, if you had the time
>or were in the area I would like to make it known that you are most
>welcome to visit our showroom where I will personally speak to you,
>over a coffee if required.
>
>I would hope we can come to some amicable agreement as soon as
>possible.
>
>Regards
>
>Anthony
>Chester UK Limited
>
>This is all well and good but it always surprises me why in the case of
>small amounts, negligible to their business in fact, that companies don't
>just sort things out as the customer wants and spread some goodwill rather
>than the reverse. I have no doubt that a district judge in a small claims
>court would find Tim's version of events entirely plausible and reasonable
>and supported by the price quoted in the magazine and that he would end up
>keeping both chucks and be awarded a refund of the overcharge plus costs.
>Offering credit notes when you've already made a mistake and pissed someone
>off is basically adding insult to injury in my book and a clear indication
>that the company is more interested in a few extra quid sales than its
>reputation.

It has certainly completely bolloxed up their chances of my buying
anything from them, especially when added to the supporting tales from
other group members. Mind you, had pretty well concluded Warco were a
much better bet from previous discussions, this just reinforces it.

David
--
David Littlewood

Similar ThreadsPosted
D13 backplate June 12, 2008, 5:18 am
Reducing noise from cabinet mounted motors May 2, 2008, 5:04 am
The Proof as animals are skinned alive. SHOCK - Calls for China fur ban as animal cruelty exposed . - GRAPHIC WARNING!! HELP. August 21, 2006, 4:30 pm
Help with Myford chuck February 5, 2008, 2:00 pm
Perpetual Wax Chuck April 23, 2008, 2:07 pm
Cleaning 3-jaw chuck May 28, 2008, 8:25 pm
FYI- odd chuck jaws on ebay May 9, 2008, 1:52 pm
Grinding chuck jaws May 15, 2008, 1:53 pm
ER32 Collet Chuck May 23, 2008, 1:46 am
Removing a reluctant chuck from an ML7 June 10, 2008, 7:22 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap