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

legal updates

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

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.

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.

Brave AgencyDriving growth in the automotive industry

Brave is an award-winning digital agency offering a comprehensive range of services aimed at helping your business grow. From rebrands and web development to marketing campaigns that get you noticed, we do it all. Since 2000, we’ve helped businesses across the automotive sector reach new heights. Could yours be next?

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

Our member explained they do not offer a delivery service and do not engage in distance selling.

Consumer “Handcuffed” by Deduction for Use Settlement

Don’t sign any contract unless you are fully aware of its terms!

Double or nothing – Consumer’s claim dismissed!

The Claimant countered with a request for more than double the amount that our member had offered.

Non-refundable deposits – Where do you stand?

Relevant paperwork should be provided before payment is taken.

Used car warranties – What are you liable for?

If a fault is found to have been developing at the time of sale, this could become the trader’s responsibility to provide a remedy.

Distance Selling Regulations – A thing of the past?

The regulations only apply to consumer contracts, not business-to-business sales, and only apply to sales conducted at a distance.

Accepting Lowball Offers 

What are your legal obligations when a customer makes a significantly low offer which you ”jokingly” accept? Will it be legally binding?

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.