Contractual Mistake – Consumer bound by intended price rather than the price given by the trader in error…


The consumer argued that she had simply paid the asking price.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 7 months old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Such was the finding of the court in a recent case where our motor trade member made a mistake when asking for payment of the balance due in respect of the sale of a Nissan Qashqai.

The consumer argued that she had simply paid the asking price.

In evidence, she denied knowing the correct price, registration or mileage of the vehicle and further claimed she did not know her budget. Her denials were in despite of the fact she had managed to negotiate on her part exchange and secure a reduction on the asking price, which she did not know?!

Suffice to say, the judge was having none of it and described her evidence as “completely implausible”.

The judge was also directed to Chitty on Contract and in particular, the important and well-established legal authorities of Hartog v Colin and Shield [1939] 3 All ER 566 and Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597.

Profit Box

Develop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

The judge accepted our member’s evidence unreservedly that there was a price in mind and the consumer knew the price and, on that basis, there was no good reason why she should not be bound by the intended price rather than the error.

This finding was supported by the fact that within hours of the sale, our member contacted the consumer and asked for the correct amount. He even offered to return her part exchange and refund her if she was not happy with the correct price, so there would have been no loss to her. Instead, she declined such reasonable offer and sought to take advantage of our member’s error.

Rightly, judgment was given for our member, as claimed.

Howard Tilney

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.