定係洗緊錢
友和完全係當消費者狗咁撚
猛男大69
375 回覆
870 Like
30 Dislike
會唔會咁唔小心打錯價錢
定係洗緊錢
定係洗緊錢
報東張 海關
咩都做齊 屌撚7佢
咩都做齊 屌撚7佢
報東張好過消委真心
仲要幾款產品同時打錯價錢，邊個信
仲有人信呢間黑店
順手報埋 仲有冇
呢間真係黑店中既黑店
好多問題
好多問題
海關咁都唔做野？
限時， 又寫埋減77%
， 邊係set錯價
， 邊係set錯價報警報海關報消委會，
懷疑有詐騙刑事成分
懷疑有詐騙刑事成分
節儉同窮係兩樣野黎
誠哥用精工錶你唔話佢窮？
弱智仔
誠哥用精工錶你唔話佢窮？
弱智仔
唔明點解標埋個價錢出黎係 invitation to treat，而唔係 offer
節儉同窮係兩樣野黎
誠哥用精工錶你唔話佢窮？
弱智仔
誠哥用精工錶你唔話佢窮？
弱智仔
知你弱智
因為無consideration
商家根本唔知咩parties睇到個invitation
連對方係邊個都唔知 唔會構成commitment to enforceable bindings
反而買家係清楚知道 商品內容 商家嘅contract bindings而去offer "buying"
所以buyer先係offerer
利申 呢啲case覺得消費者應該要有保障 不過law就係咁on9
商家根本唔知咩parties睇到個invitation
連對方係邊個都唔知 唔會構成commitment to enforceable bindings
反而買家係清楚知道 商品內容 商家嘅contract bindings而去offer "buying"
所以buyer先係offerer
利申 呢啲case覺得消費者應該要有保障 不過law就係咁on9
因為無consideration
商家根本唔知咩parties睇到個invitation
連對方係邊個都唔知 唔會構成commitment to enforceable bindings
反而買家係清楚知道 商品內容 商家嘅contract bindings而去offer "buying"
所以buyer先係offerer
利申 呢啲case覺得消費者應該要有保障 不過law就係咁on9
商家根本唔知咩parties睇到個invitation
連對方係邊個都唔知 唔會構成commitment to enforceable bindings
反而買家係清楚知道 商品內容 商家嘅contract bindings而去offer "buying"
所以buyer先係offerer
利申 呢啲case覺得消費者應該要有保障 不過law就係咁on9
上面即刻有人負皮我俾埋案例你地
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
The court ruled that displaying goods on a shop's shelves is an invitation to treat, not an offer.
The contract is formed at the cashier's desk, which clarified retail law and consumer rights
俾埋案例你地Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
The court ruled that displaying goods on a shop's shelves is an invitation to treat, not an offer.
The contract is formed at the cashier's desk, which clarified retail law and consumer rights
師兄諗多左
人地咪話左定錯價
賣唔到比你囉
人地咪話左定錯價
賣唔到比你囉
問題係我係負責批budget請人果個
講事實就係弱智，眾人皆醉你獨醒囉
留名睇跟進
文又得，武又得，算係咁啦
你同誠哥比
搞錯左
係佢狂歡唔係你狂歡
總之你俾左錢先
有貨再通知你
係佢狂歡唔係你狂歡
總之你俾左錢先
有貨再通知你
上年HP班苦主呢?