new Golf V GTI - HOWWWW cheap ! ! !

[Teutonic_Tamer]

New Golf V GTI 3dr - only £20.58 - this weeks Autocar, pg 70


                                  

OK, OK, I know it's a typo, but I needed to lighten the mood, after all the mudslinging in the retro-fit Xenon thread

[illyun]

Aren't they legally obliged to sell at that price?  If so, I'll cancel my Edition 30 order and buy 1100 of those 

[Teutonic_Tamer]

It was in the "block" of specifications, alongside the other hot hatches in the test, and not an actual advert.

Shame though - could have been the next "free flights with every vacuum cleaner" debacle. 

[Shrodinger's Cat]

Aren't they legally obliged to sell at that price? 

Afraid not Illyun - although some shops and the like mistakenly believe that they have to sell an item at the price it's advertised for.

The price in this case is what's known as an "invitation to treat".  It is not an "offer" to sell you the car at that price, and therefore cannot be "accepted".  
 

[laney]

Thats an answer of a lawyer or accountant if ever I saw one 

One of two cases permanently etched on the memory - that and Jaffa Cakes!

Sorry - the geek in me coming out again   

[illyun]

Damn... but I have used that argument against a couple of retail outlets - and its worked!!!   But what about internet orders?  All those stories of people buying stuff at stupid prices because the webmaster or whoever has made a mistake...  Maybe they are bound by that because the transaction has gone through at that price?

[Shrodinger's Cat]

Thats an answer of a lawyer or accountant if ever I saw one 

Erm... wouldn't like to say 

One of two cases permanently etched on the memory - that and Jaffa Cakes!

Yes the Boots case is branded into my head.  Is Jaffa Cakes the VAT one?  Think I remember the essence of that one, if not the detail.   :embarassed:

Damn... but I have used that argument against a couple of retail outlets - and its worked!!!   But what about internet orders?  All those stories of people buying stuff at stupid prices because the webmaster or whoever has made a mistake...  Maybe they are bound by that because the transaction has gone through at that price?

Obviously each case would turn on its own facts and must be judged on its own merits...  etc etc etc