Legal Advice I Wholeheartedly Endorse

[major_clanger]

From the BBC: Five consumer laws you really ought to know.

Now I do know this because I've done a law degree, an LLM that covered Internet commerce, and my Bar course. But this is the sort of thing that everyone should know. Bookmark this story, or print it out and save it - it might save you a lot of money and hassle one day.

(Also, see if you can spot where I sprayed coffee on the keyboard. Hint: it might have been in the section on your rights re airlines.)

Comments

[fjm.livejournal.com]

I would add to that (having had to use it more than once): if is in the window, and advertised for sale they have to sell it to you, even if it is the display copy.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Sort of.

When I studied contract law it was taken as settled case law (Pharma Soc GB v Boots[1953], Fisher v Bell [1961]) that when a shop displayed an item on sale it was legally an 'invitation to treat' rather than an 'offer to enter into a contract'. Technically, the offer is made by you when you take the item to the checkout, and is accepted by the shop then, so the shop isn't breaking a contract by refusing to sell you goods as it hasn't formally agreed to enter into one.

However, the relevant law is to do with advertising - you can't sue the shop for refusing to sell something to you, but you can report it to Trading Standards who can prosecute the owner for false advertising. And of course if there's evidence that the sale was refused on grounds of prejudice then various equality legislation would apply.

(And I think that these days you could make a good case that given current shopping practise a shop is offering to enter into a contract when it displays goods at a set price. Both cases pointing the other way are quite old and were really more about who was liable for a possibly illegal sale than they were about contract formation. It would make an excellent Mooting question!)

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

Serendipitously, frostfox was talking up an online retailer yesterday whose site, when I visited it, had quite a lot of legalese of this sort on one of its pages. I took it to be the UK equivalent of signs in the US saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." About which I'm dubious actually.

I wonder if anyone has compiled an equally useful list for US residents.

MKK

[zotz]

Yeah. Charlotte got stiffed by an airline (in the spirit of that article, let's refer to the miscreants in question as "RuinAir") delaying a flight overnight due to engine problems. No accommodation, refreshments or compensation. I believe the process of strongarming something out of them is under way. I found the relevant EU directive and last year's court judgement on mechanical problems via Google while she was explaining the situation over the phone from Portugal.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Oh, I like your invented airline's name even more than that in the article.

And fisk them good and proper! Their whole corporate culture is one of abiding by the letter rather than the spirit wherever possible, so when the letter can be used against them, it should.

[murphys-lawyer.livejournal.com]

As of around 10pm, the BBC now refer to them as "Acme Airlines".

Which, in my very personal and deeply held opinion, is a slur on the good name of the Acme corporation.

[pennski.livejournal.com]

Now bookmarked!

Thank-you.

[lebeautemps.livejournal.com]

I think the program "Airline" about one of the budget efforts just encouraged me to pay that extra fiver to use British Airways or Lufthansa. They actually show you flights being cancelled and miserable passengers wandering away from the desk - glad this being looked at. And I would extol all Ruinair passengers to pee anywhere on the plane if they start charging a quid to use the loo.

Our Contract Law Prof opened her first lecture with these consumer issues - it got everyone's attention and has served me very well since.