UKC

I recently ordered some boots from a well known UK out retailer. After a week they said the boots weren't available anymore. They offered 10% off a different product. It's somewhat irritating because the original boots ordered were >50% off rrp.

They were end of line and only one size left, so I suspect it was a genuine stock counting error and they wouldn't be able to source the boots anymore. Still it is quite annoying to have paid for something and then be told a week later, you can't have it and we won't give you anything comparable either.

Is the shop within their rights to do that? Am I just being whiney?

You're just being whiney.

You're just being whiney. Bad luck, soz.

My understanding of selling is the contract is of the form of offer and acceptance, only once both are established there a sale contract. But, it's the buyer who makes the offer. When you see a price sticker, that's just a notice saying, in effect, will accept offers of..

From the other side of the same concept there's nothing to stop you, legaly speaking, from haggling at the supermarket checkout. 

Fair enough.

Is this not exactly what's happened? I offered £x for the product, they said yes, I sent them £x, they sent me an email clarifying we had an agreement. I would have thought at this point we had a contract?

Regardless, it's not the end of the world.

What has happened in that situation is that the contract has been frustrated, i.e. they sold you them in good faith but later found they didn't have them or they were damaged so they couldn't sell them to you and so couldn't fulfil the contract despite the best intentions to do so.

In that situation, unless there are specific compensation provisions in the contract, the remedy is to go back to the situation as if the contract didn't exist at all, i.e. to refund your money and that is that.  Offering a discount on another product is added goodwill so better than they legally have to do.

The one potential legal challenge might be if the situation arose due to them not delivering the service with "reasonable care and skill", but just losing one pair of shoes or getting them damaged in a warehouse probably wouldn't fulfil that legal test, as with the best will in the world stuff gets lost/damaged in warehouses from time to time, that's why businesses do stock-checks periodically rather than just believing what the computer says, and I'm sure they do too.  I suspect that would only go anywhere if it'd been happening repeatedly or if the withdrawal was obviously intentional, e.g. to put them back on sale at a higher price.

So wait, what would be your normal right of return? On this side of the Channel it's legally two weeks. Within that period, I am entitled to get my money back, no questions asked, as long as the product is unused. Stores often do that 'no returns on sales' bullshit, but I think legally that doesn't hold, except maybe for a going out of business sale.

Given the fact that you don't have a product yet, wouldn't you be legally entitled to a refund? Otherwise, you could just ask for any random product and subsequently return it... More faff for everybody involved. 

In the UK under distance selling rules you're entitled to return them, indicating you wish to do so, within 7 days of receipt, for any or no reason (the return doesn't need to be complete within that time, just your notification to them of the return).  But sellers can put it in the contract that you have to cover the return postage.  There are a few exceptions, though, e.g. software where you might have installed/copied it.

If purchased at a physical store there's no such right though if items are returned as new so they can go straight back on sale most shops will do a refund/credit note just out of good service.

Presumably they returned your money, at least?

Yes, or at least offered to, can't remember exactly. No complaints on that front. Should have said that in the OP.

Thanks for that. Useful to know.

I think I take the view that it is "reasonable care and skill" to not offer a product you don't have. But I suppose the realities of warehouses are hard to deal with.

Edit to add: I wonder if people would have a different view if it was Amazon rather than an outdoors shop. Though the legalities are presumably the same, I am more sympathetic to the outdoors shop than I would be to Amazon.

When you order online, your "offer" is sent to the retailer.

They then have the option to accept, or decline. Usually they will accept, but if they find its not in stock or for some reason decide they do not wish to deal with you, they may decline.

If they accept, a contract is formed, which you could enforce. Eg, if they cannot supply the goods, but you can source them elsewhere at a higher price, you could make them compensate you the difference.

That's the theory. The reality is, life is short and one needs to pick one's battles. 

Apologies, did not read this bit. They took your money, a contract was formed.

TBH I find it rather frustrating how unaware many in retail are of consumer law, of course you come across rogues from time to time, but a lot of it is just ignorance, and unprofessional. Generally, if you think what is the fair thing, you will not be very far from consumer law.

But almost invariably one would pay at the time of ordering; does that mean if a (probably small) retailer doesn't have software that accounts for levels of stock in real time they'd have to honour the contract regardless?

(Say, using the OP example, there's one pair of boots left, but two people place an order close enough for a website not to be able to update and make them unavailable)

You're whining even if technically correct. 

What outcome do you actually want? They obviously don't have the boots so other than a discount what can they offer that will appease you? 

Life's too short. Move on.

Any similar boot. Ideally the updated version of the boot I tried to buy. Which as they are a large outdoor retailer would be very easy.

Frankly a 10% off discount on other non-discounted products is not a great offer, I already get that with my BMC membership.

I'd skip the big retailer, you'll get better service from a small sole trader.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.

No, you enter card details, you have not paid. Read what I posted.

The retailer gets an alert an order has arrived, they then have the opportunity to go to shelf and make sure it's not been sold by a colleague in the shop, or if stock is low, double check it's there. Then you take the money, the contract is formed, or put another way, you have done a deal. 

If after this you renege, you are breaking the deal and trust. 

Should the OP have a heart attack over a few quid, no, but it is shitty behavior by the business, and I doubt the owner knows. A small business person values their reputation and good name above all else, or they should.

In a contrasting case; I order some skis from a retailer on a Black Friday deal (last year's model for 60%-ish discount), they phoned me to say that they had a stock issue, but they would honour the sale at the same price for the current year's model and to check I was happy with that. Great customer service! So I guess it depends on the retailer - perhaps larger stores can afford to suck-up their mistakes and side with the customer, or they're just inclined one way or the other. But I think it makes the difference, I'll continue to shop with them.

I wouldn't say I'd see it differently for either to be honest.  Personally I'd say reasonable care and skill wasn't used if this is happening repeatedly (e.g. I have had damaged goods from AO so many times that I don't think their warehouse *is* operated with reasonable care and skill, though they almost make it tolerable by offering fairly generous discounts if you do get something damaged and are happy to keep it because the damage is hidden by the kitchen cabinets, for instance) but stuff will go missing from warehouses or get damaged occasionally even with the best-run place, that's just the reality of an imperfect world.

To use another example, traffic sometimes means buses are late, but if the same bus is late by roughly the same amount of time day after day for months on end then the timetable is incorrect and in that case I'd say reasonable care and skill isn't being applied.

And that is superb customer service, but they aren't obliged to do it legally.  But it should be rewarded by repeat custom.

A lot of people are confused by the fact that a lot of banks these days represent authorisations (which aren't actually taking the money) as transactions which later disappear if not completed.  This makes sense in most cases as it reduces the need to keep track of what you've spent "offline", but it does mean people think money has been taken when it hasn't, all that's happened is that a check has been carried out to see if the money is there and to reserve it for a period of time.

Spot on.

Oddly, if you order something online and it takes a month or two to come into stock, it can make it difficult for the retailer to "take" your money, as the transaction has timed out.

It is also why when people order online they end up not paying, because the retailer forgets to take the money. In these cases less than 1% of people tell the retailer, the charitable side of me says people do not notice, the less charitable side thinks 99% of people are less honest than they should be.

I had something similar buying insulation last year. Company contacted me after a few weeks to say they couldn't honor their shipping and that I would need to pay £350 for a courier or wait until they had more orders in the area to make it worthwhile. In the end they refunded me and I ordered from a competitor whose courier did the delivery.

The biggest problem? My bulk order was enough to fill the couriers van, so really the first company were just offering something they couldn't deliver.