@SparkRite, are you paying by DD? If you're willing to move provider over this and more concerned about the principle than the money, I'd be tempted to only pay them what you agreed and let them cut you off if they don't like it. IMO they're not going to win if they pursue you in court over the difference and you have a pretty good defence it they send it for debt collection or try and affect your credit rating. If you start paying the new rate by DD or otherwise, that could be deemed acceptance of the "new" contract.
Possible Reneging on Contract by Provider
- Thread starter SparkRite
- Start date
That's executing a contract, enforcement means forcing one party to honour the agreement. In the coffee example, enforcement would only come into play if you paid, then the barista refused to hand over the coffee.
Was it a contract or an invitation to contract?. After all, if a shop or website has priced something wrong they have no contractual obligation to sell it to you for that price as it is an invitation to contract. Unless you have this in black and white in writing your wasting your time.
The scenario given by the OP is probably more like if you asked how much a coffee was, being told €3 and then ordering one and being charged €4. But in your example, what would be your opinion if you had paid for the coffee, the barista refused to hand it over and then claimed you had no contract because it wasn't in writing.
"Invitation to Treat" - usually (not always - for example special sale signs etc) a price sign in a shop or an advertisement is considered an "Invitation to Treat" i.e. not a formal offer. The idea being that you still need to go into the shop and enquire about the price.
This wasn't the case here - the OP looked to end a contract, the company (whether in error or not) made a counter offer, the OP asked them to confirm the details of that, they did and reconfirmed the offer which was then accepted.
If it had been a general indication that a certain deal might be available for some customers then it would be an invitation
If the coffee shop owner intervenes and says the barista made a mistake with the €3 price, they would be under no obligation to sell it to you at that price, so you agree to pay the €4, or you get a refund. They cannot be forced to honour the €3 price they gave in error.
Not a good analogy - let's make it more like the original issue. If the sign on the shop said €3 for a coffee - or I went to the counter and was told €3 - and I said I'd pass as it wasn't great value. The Barista says "actually, I'll give it to you for €2". If I then ask him to back and check and after doing so he said, "Yes - I can do it for you at that price" and then I ordered the coffee.
Yes I would expect them to honour that price - even if the owner comes out and said a mistake was made. At that point, it's the owner's problem that his staff are untrained or acting incorrectly. And I think I would be legally correct. However - who insists on their rights for €1 - it's not worth it. So, even being right I'd probably just move on.
Multiply it 1000x - then maybe it does become worthwhile to go through the hassle - depends on each person I guess
And that's just it, the shop can come back and say the price they offered was a mistake even after you decide to buy based on the revised price. Regardless of whether the difference is €1 on a coffee or €10,000 on a car, the shop can not be forced to honour the price. You do not have a right to get that price, so you have no legal grounds on which to to try enforce it.
I think it's more akin to renting a coffee machine. I ring Virgin Coffee Machines up to tell them to take their machine back as their new price is too expensive. Their retention rep then says "Mr. Game, you're such a valued customer, we'd hate to lose your custom, I've spoken to my boss and we can give you a discount and hold you at that price for life". Customer retained, rep meets his retention targets and gets his bonus.
Virgin Coffee Machines accept this discounted price for the first year then contact me and tell me the "for life" contract was only for a year, and the machine rental price is going up again. Had I known that I would have switched to Eircoffee the last time around, who had a particularly attractive offer at the time, even though I prefer the way Virgin deliver their coffee beans.
If I was also free to end the "for life" contract after a year, it's probably not enforceable. And even if enforceable, probably not worth my while paying a solicitor. But I'd feel free to keep the machine and keep paying the discounted price, until they turn up to collect it. Of course if the coffee machine breaks or I want to upgrade to the latest superduper Highspeed Fibreground Coffee Machine, I'd expect them not to honour the discount.
Virgin Coffee Machines accept this discounted price for the first year then contact me and tell me the "for life" contract was only for a year, and the machine rental price is going up again. Had I known that I would have switched to Eircoffee the last time around, who had a particularly attractive offer at the time, even though I prefer the way Virgin deliver their coffee beans.
If I was also free to end the "for life" contract after a year, it's probably not enforceable. And even if enforceable, probably not worth my while paying a solicitor. But I'd feel free to keep the machine and keep paying the discounted price, until they turn up to collect it. Of course if the coffee machine breaks or I want to upgrade to the latest superduper Highspeed Fibreground Coffee Machine, I'd expect them not to honour the discount.
Last edited:
That is exactly it, in a nutshell. It was a contract I entered into with a minimum term of 12 months as stated by the rep.
I pay by DD but I don't think I have any control over the amount that is debited unfortunately.
There is absolutely no dispute over what I was offered in order to retain me as a customer, but they state that they cannot 'retain' me on such a basis ie. fixed price for life.
I wonder, in fact I probably know, that if the situation was reversed and I rang to say I made a mistake when entering into a contract and I now want to change what we agreed and pay them LESS, I don't think I would get a sympathetic ear.
I pay by DD but I don't think I have any control over the amount that is debited unfortunately.
There is absolutely no dispute over what I was offered in order to retain me as a customer, but they state that they cannot 'retain' me on such a basis ie. fixed price for life.
I wonder, in fact I probably know, that if the situation was reversed and I rang to say I made a mistake when entering into a contract and I now want to change what we agreed and pay them LESS, I don't think I would get a sympathetic ear.
Last edited:
I do actually. And if it was €10k on a car I would absolutely enforce it if I could demonstrate the correct offer, validate offer and acceptance. After that it's between the company and their sales person
You seem to be still claiming you can't have a verbal contract. You absolutely can have a valid verbal contract.
I've seen it, been on both ends of it... And for amounts a lot bigger then this.
For years, virtually all FX and securities deals were verbal. Think back to "calling your broker" or every single image of open outcry trading... All verbal contracts
Can't you cancel the DD @SparkRite and start paying the agreed amount by card or bank transfer?
I think the fact that you were aware you had to stick with the contract for a year is key. It wouldn't be fair to allow you break the contract after a year and not allow the provider do the same. IANAL but I think there is a principle of reciprocity and symmetry in fair contract terms. Although there's also a principle that bad or ambiguous terms will be read against the drafter ...
I think the fact that you were aware you had to stick with the contract for a year is key. It wouldn't be fair to allow you break the contract after a year and not allow the provider do the same. IANAL but I think there is a principle of reciprocity and symmetry in fair contract terms. Although there's also a principle that bad or ambiguous terms will be read against the drafter ...
The car scenario above is missing the intention and consideration. You cannot legally enforce execution of an error.
Where did I say that?
Really?
(a) Intention already established by both parties entering into negotiations. The "intention" rule is not that you intended to sell at a certain price - it is that you intended to enter into a contract. In fact, the sales room itself is a factor towards intention.
(b) Consideration is there - the fact there is a disagreement over price proves consideration (not that consideration requires money).
(c) You absolutely can be legally required to complete an error by your employee. Unless it was so obvious an error as to be ridiculous - you could
In fact you keep saying it. Let me put it another way... if a company issued a written contract with an error which both sides signed, do you think they could be held to it? You argue above that you can't be held to an error - but I think you mean in a verbal contract. I'm pointing out that an error, verbal or written, is enforceable - where a contract can be proved
Therefore I think you differentiate between a written contract and a verbal one
Under Irish law, you are correct, consideration doesn't have to be money, but it must be something of value. What in the coffee example above has the customer transferred to the supplier before they are asked to pay €4 for the coffee they thought would cost €3?
Just point to where I said it once....
The €3 is the consideration. Consideration doesn't have to be in the past - nothing has to have changed hands before a contract is in place. The fact that consideration is part of the agreement makes it an enforceable contract.
I already did above - you say there is no legal basis to enforce a verbal arrangement. I'm saying that there is - and I'm pointing out that if you had the same offer in writing you wouldn't claim there was no basis to enforce. Therefore you are differentiating between verbal and written contracts. But legally, there is no differentiation.
The transaction doesn't have to have happened in the past (e.g. payment) for there to be a contract - a promise to do something in the future for a fee is a contract and is enforceable legally