C&P at supermarkets

Yes, that would be a valid defence.

Contracts do not imply signing. Oral contracts are binding too. You don't normally sign a contract when buying groceries, but a contract exists nevertheless.

Well, in one sense of the word you have, and in another you haven't. It depends on what you mean by buy. If you mean (and I guess you do) that the process of buying includes entering into a contract *and* completing it, then you haven't. But if you mean (as I do) that buying means *only* entering into a contract, then you have.

One might say "I've just bought a trailer on ebay for my car, tomorrow I'm off to collect it and hand over the readies.", which shows the word "bought" used my way.

But yes, I would have no problem with handing over an IOU, especially in a big Tesco's where nobody can be expected to remember. In the local corner shop it might be different.

"Oh, no. I seem to have left my handbag at home." "That's OK, Miss, you can pay for these flowers when you come in tomorrow for your usual copy of Cosmopolitan and your week's supply of cat food." "You're so kind, but Tigger was run over by a car this afternoon, I had to scrape his remains off the road and carry them home, that's why I left the bloody handbag behind [literally bloody, you understand, I disapprove of swearing] and I just had to pop in for some flowers to leave at the spot where it happened." "That's dreadful, Miss. In that case, take the flowers with my compliments, and have one of these nice 'Thinking of You Always' cards too. Very tasteful, don't you think? They were designed by my cousin."

Not necessarily. Unilateral contracts do not have this separation

- in such contracts an offer is made but acceptance and performance are the same act. The classic case is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Company.

Axel

Agreed. It's not the act of looking, but liking what you see.

OK then, scanning is part of step 2 and merely confirms to the checkout chick the same as a price tag would, namely that what I am offering is acceptable.

RR: "The shelfmark said 19p, and I offer to buy this can for 19p" CC: CC: "Right you are, Sir, the machine says 19p, and that means the shop owner authorises me to accept offers of 19p, and since that's what you are offering, accordingly I hereby accept your offer. While you're here, are there any other offers you'd like to make?".

That's what happens in theory, though the practice is slightly different due to the scanning technology. It would be easier with price tags. So what instead happens is that I present the can, she scans it, up pops 19p, and I then (in theory) watch the display like a hawk for every item scanned, and am deemed to be offering to pay 19p for it by saying nothing, and she is deemed to be accepting my tacit offer proceeding to the next item.

Actually it makes no difference to this part whether offers and acceptances are made for each item individually, or for the whole lot collectively.

I don't think so. Asking "How would you like to pay?" presupposes that payment is in fact due. How can it be, unless the offer to buy has been accepted and the contract therefore exists?

I maintain that any question regarding method or indeed timing of payment does not form part of the steps leading to *forming* the contract, only to *completing* it.

Title to the goods may not pass to me until they've been paid for, but my *entitlement* to them is, at least for the time being, secured. So even if the shop were to insist on holding my goods to ransom (aka "keeping them safe" for me) until I went out to get some cash, they would not be entitled meanwhile to sell them to anyone else. This is important when, for instance, I got the last can of tomatoes and somebody else wanted one badly enough to pay a fiver for it. Selling them mine in those circumstances would not be on, and would violate the "safe" keeping.

fair enough about signing, but a contract implies a two way acceptance. You saying '"i'll be back with the money' as you sprint out the door, implies, at best, your attempt to negotiate a contract. Unless they shout back 'OK' there is no contract.

I dont believe it does, because you having 'bought' your trailer (you'll need one with all those tins of tomatoes) comes about because you have entered into an agreement/contract with the person on eBay. So you are using it my way, eg to imply a mutual agreement to trade, including the means of payment, always clearly specified on eBay.

Whereas sprinting out the door at Dixons with a 42-inch TV, because there is no prior agreement with them to do that, means there is no contract between you, hence you havent bought anything. Picking it up in the store doesnt imply you bought the item in question because there is no contract until they agree to your terms.

It would be a defence. Unless the shop agreed to your Ts&Cs (payment later), it would be an invalid one.

fair enough, but unless its completed, its not valid.

No because as you point out the contract isnt complete so until its complete title hasnt passed to you.

Example. If the till operative passes a bottle to you and its dropped and breaks, they will go and get another one. If you pay, and then drop it, they wont. I think this shows when title xfers.

Two way acceptance? No. Offer + Acceptance = Contract. I've offered to buy the can, and the shop have agreed to sell it to me. That's the contract of sale in the bag. Actually paying for it and taking it away are steps which follow *after* the contract has come about.

A contract for what?

There is already a contract, under which you are obliged to pay for the goods and the shop is obliged to release them to you.

Over and above that, you don't need a further contract to regulate how and when payment and release are to happen, but yes, I agree that the shop is entitled to delay releasing the goods until satisfactory payment terms have been sorted out.

Often it will be easier for the shop just to let you take them away, since it can be difficult to keep them safe (and, if perishable, fresh). But they need to be able to trust you for that option to be available.

same as in the shop

Although a range of acceptable payment options is usually advertised together with the item in question, the commitment to buy and sell is in place *before* one of the payment options is selected.

Yes there is and yes you have. Not yet having agreed how and when delivery and payment are to take place is not incompatible with a contract being in place. A contract is, after all, fundamentally nothing but an agreement. You agree to buy the telly, they agree to sell it. How and when what was agreed actually happens is a different matter.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

A moment later RR realises that he left his wallet at home and, being 'shy'(!), doesn't want to ask for credit.

So:- RR: "Oh dear, I've forgotten my wallet - I'll leave those, sorry. Bye!" CC: "No sir, we now have a contract in place and I require performance of said contract. We'll need to take you over to the supervisor's desk and take down your details...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Not necessarily. Have you ever asked "how much is that?" to be queried back "how will you be paying, sir?"!

[Eg If the retailer is happy to sell at a lower price for cash...]

In that case, asking how you'd like to pay *doesn't* presuppose payment is due - because when you find out the cash/credit price, you might decide not to "offer to buy".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Have you never entered into a contract which has as a term "subscriptions will be taken by Direct Debit, on the first of every month..."?

If it's *in* the contract, it must have been part of the steps leading to *forming* it.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

AIUI, the contract is only valid if there was a "meeting of minds".

But your opinion is that the contract did *not* include terms for payment, yet the shop's opinion is that the contract

*did* include terms for payment (ie, using one of their advertised methods with payment before leaving the shop).

Sounds like there wasn't a proper "meeting of minds"...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Agreed, but the contract itself can include terms & conditions describing delivery & payment.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Really? The OP actually said:- "... they swiped it in her own EPOS then asked me to enter the PIN. I should have refused, asked for my card back and then walked out the shop with a trolly full of already scanned goods."

Sounds pretty dishonest to me - he didn't say he'd "give his details & ID etc, *then* make off with the goods"

-- he'd simply "walk out the shop with a trolly full"!!

Huh? Why should a contract not be "valid"? A contract is an agreement.

That's not relevant. The goods are in some sense mine even if full title hasn't yet passed. If I said I'd nip out for some cash, and then didn't return within a reasonable period (a day, say), then the shop might be entitled to assume I had decided to repudiate the contract, and *then* they could sell my valuable can to some other eager punter. But if I did come back (after an hour, say) and found they had sold the only can left in Edinburgh to someone else, and I really wanted it, I could sue the shop for breach of contract and insist they make me whole by helicoptering one in from Glasgow.

That's a red herring. I don't think this has anything to do with passing of title so much as responsibility for what happens on their premises. The first part of what you say is true, but the second is not. A few years ago, having paid for my stuff, I was walking from the checkout to the exit, when the bottom of a cardboard wine carrier gave way, and several bottles broke. I was given replacements.

(It had really been my own fault: I was being environmentally friendly and re-using a cardboard carrier I had used previously several times, only I think it must have been a bit damp, and that's why it gave way under the weight of its contents.)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Presumably, that was probably more done voluntarily by the retailer, for good customer relations, rather than for any obligation they had?

Indubitably. The same is true if you break something before you've paid for it. You can't just go rummaging around in the store breaking everything, and in theory the shop could make you pay for any damage you do.

There could be some room for doubt, I admit, but on the whole some people pay cash on the spot, others don't. They just show their brownie badge and settle up some time next month. If there should arise a minor technical glitch in the processing of the badge, I don't see why the shop should see fit to disrupt one's normal pattern of doing business.

Trouble is, in the absence of a written contract, and of written Ts&Cs, it can get a bit woolly what the precise terms are.

Sorry, different "he". :-)

He probably just forgot to tell us that they had scanned his Tesco Clubcard first, so they already knew who he was, where he lived, what his spending patterns were, his sock size, favourite tipple, and kids' ages (from nappy sizes).

Well, either that, or it was the card which the lady in front of him in the queue had left behind by mistake.

It would be a full and valid defence against theft.

It might be an invalid defence against breach of contract.

In message , Tumbleweed writes

You cant say, it would be a matter for the Mags or a Jury to decide.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

But that "brownie badge" (aka credit card) is, usually, nothing to do with the store - it's dependent on a contract between yourself and the (independent) "badge-issuer".

Anyway, the "minor technical glitch" from the start of this thread was simply the OP refusing to enter his PIN (or pay by any other means) - hardly a reasonable exception?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Doesn't the supermarket display them somewhere in-store? ;-)