【豐澤故障】標錯價能否取消交易? 律師:若豐澤已收錢,買家勝訴的機會較大

932 回覆
494 Like 20 Dislike
2018-12-06 21:46:27
如果真係為左依D小便宜而告鳩豐澤
真係核突過支那人

咩小便宜
第日你買樓
人地寫多個零
申請破產嗰陣記得唔好話係賣家問題
係喎,咁到時就係人地貪你小便宜
咁小便宜就豪左佢啦

都唔知你up乜柒 諗清楚再講啦
2018-12-06 21:46:40
如果香港有包攬訴訟呢舖就好睇
只可惜

唔係集體訴訟咩

明就得啦
都係果樣野黎
2018-12-06 21:51:24
如果香港有包攬訴訟呢舖就好睇
只可惜

唔係集體訴訟咩

明就得啦
都係果樣野黎

就係冇左所以先更加要理性諗
一告個時間成本係哂自已一個身上

如果有包攬訴訟真係唔使理得唔得, 去左先去啦
都唔使理有冇COURT CASE
2018-12-06 22:00:25
睇左註冊AC的條款未..?
2018-12-06 22:01:23
睇左註冊AC的條款未..?

法律>條款
2018-12-06 22:02:39
睇左註冊AC的條款未..?

法律>條款

條款=合約=有效法律文件,你可以唔簽,但買唔到野ONLY
2018-12-06 22:03:03
睇左註冊AC的條款未..?

已經好多案例說明頭盔條款唔係無敵
2018-12-06 22:03:32
咁就告
2018-12-06 22:03:58
好想睇連登仔大戰李嘉誠
有人帶頭未?
2018-12-06 22:04:13
好似每位送$300禮卷
2018-12-06 22:06:08
有confirm letter 佢都可以話係收到你既order only
hold左你limit都只係accept前既步驟
都唔算係正常accept左contract

所以上邊有人話有confirm letter就係contract 生效
真係人唔笑 狗都吠啦
2018-12-06 22:08:18
好想睇連登仔大戰李嘉誠
有人帶頭未?

向海關舉報「商品說明條例」就得,唔使親身上陣

香港首富咁有錢We trust佢叫我地「不要錯過此優惠」
2018-12-06 22:09:57
海關發言人則回應指,就今次標錯價事件,海關暫未有接獲相關舉報。但根據《商品說明條例》(《條例》),「商品說明」就貨品而言,指以任何方式及透過任何途經,就該等貨品或該等貨品的任何部分而作出的直接或間接的顯示,包括價格。商戶如就有關貨品作出虛假或具誤導性達關鍵程度的陳述,可構成虛假商品說明的罪行。此外,根據《條例》,商戶如沒有合理理由相信在合理期間內,按某指明價格要約供應或提供合理數量的該貨品,可能會觸犯餌誘式廣告宣傳的罪行。違反《條例》屬嚴重罪行,一經定罪,最高可被判罰款50萬元及監禁5年。但發言人補充,由於每一宗個案的情況皆有其獨特性,故實際個案需要根據調查結果及相關證據才能判斷。
2018-12-06 22:11:09
有confirm letter 佢都可以話係收到你既order only
hold左你limit都只係accept前既步驟
都唔算係正常accept左contract

所以上邊有人話有confirm letter就係contract 生效
真係人唔笑 狗都吠啦

你話係就係
https://eoasis.rajahtann.com/eoasis/lu/pdf/E-commerce-Contract.pdf
2018-12-06 22:14:17
咩呀 好似如果vendor 出個offer 係出錯而purchaser 明知有錯而accept and take advantage係voidable 定void ab initio

但而家係invitation to treat > offer > acceptance (mistaken)
未必可以直接apply

利申: 唔記得哂 等year1 仔答

搵到啦

依家個問題係:invitation to treat (wrong price) > offer (same wrong price) > acceptance (if consideration of 298 is mistaken)

其實仲可以話個buyer ought to know of the mistaken price

以呢個價錢298 咁低 真係可能有理由話呢個係一個obvious mistake

Mistake as to terms of contract + known/ reasonably ought to be known + mistaken party is NOT at fault

1. Hartog v Colin & Shield
Vendor OFFERED mistakenly large quantity of goods at a price per pound (whereas meant to offer the price per piece)
> void

2. Smith v Hughes
Purchaser ACCEPTED mistakenly
Vendor NO misrepresentation > acceptance VALID

出offer嗰個有規定個offer要合理
邊度有authority?
我鐘意出offer$1買你部法拉利有冇問題?
你可以唔accept

如果要apply unilateral mistake
我上面講左 一係offeror出左offer想反口 Hartog v Colin & Shield
一係offeree 受mislead想反口 Smith v Hughes

你based on 自己on9 accept左
已經唔付合’mistaken party is NOT at fault ’
On9係法律上有remedy架咩?

我再問多次
如果一個contract都成立左
單方面覺得唔合理可以推翻
咁仲要contract law黎把撚呀?

Likewise, an employee's mistake led a seller to advertise printers online at $66 each, instead of $3854 each. Buyers, knowing the price was a mistake, snapped them up. The Singapore Court of Appeal refused to uphold any resulting contracts (Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502, approved in Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257).


2018-12-06 22:16:49
海關發言人則回應指,就今次標錯價事件,海關暫未有接獲相關舉報。但根據《商品說明條例》(《條例》),「商品說明」就貨品而言,指以任何方式及透過任何途經,就該等貨品或該等貨品的任何部分而作出的直接或間接的顯示,包括價格。商戶如就有關貨品作出虛假或具誤導性達關鍵程度的陳述,可構成虛假商品說明的罪行。此外,根據《條例》,商戶如沒有合理理由相信在合理期間內,按某指明價格要約供應或提供合理數量的該貨品,可能會觸犯餌誘式廣告宣傳的罪行。違反《條例》屬嚴重罪行,一經定罪,最高可被判罰款50萬元及監禁5年。但發言人補充,由於每一宗個案的情況皆有其獨特性,故實際個案需要根據調查結果及相關證據才能判斷。

上需一班法律學生未學呢條條例
2018-12-06 22:17:21
搵到啦

依家個問題係:invitation to treat (wrong price) > offer (same wrong price) > acceptance (if consideration of 298 is mistaken)

其實仲可以話個buyer ought to know of the mistaken price

以呢個價錢298 咁低 真係可能有理由話呢個係一個obvious mistake

Mistake as to terms of contract + known/ reasonably ought to be known + mistaken party is NOT at fault

1. Hartog v Colin & Shield
Vendor OFFERED mistakenly large quantity of goods at a price per pound (whereas meant to offer the price per piece)
> void

2. Smith v Hughes
Purchaser ACCEPTED mistakenly
Vendor NO misrepresentation > acceptance VALID

出offer嗰個有規定個offer要合理
邊度有authority?
我鐘意出offer$1買你部法拉利有冇問題?
你可以唔accept

如果要apply unilateral mistake
我上面講左 一係offeror出左offer想反口 Hartog v Colin & Shield
一係offeree 受mislead想反口 Smith v Hughes

你based on 自己on9 accept左
已經唔付合’mistaken party is NOT at fault ’
On9係法律上有remedy架咩?

我再問多次
如果一個contract都成立左
單方面覺得唔合理可以推翻
咁仲要contract law黎把撚呀?

Likewise, an employee's mistake led a seller to advertise printers online at $66 each, instead of $3854 each. Buyers, knowing the price was a mistake, snapped them up. The Singapore Court of Appeal refused to uphold any resulting contracts (Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502, approved in Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257).



2018-12-06 22:18:43
豐澤班in house快啲諗啲新point
好撚悶
2018-12-06 22:19:03
系統完全正常運作,由買野結脹到確認文件都冇問題,係有人入錯資料,同冇人覆檢

買家就算覺得可能個價錢出錯,唔通就冇豐澤低價出售既可能性
以前雷射結業果陣有d貨賣好平低過市價,
每年都有唔少商鋪係呢個時間做清貨開倉大減價
back friday一拆都有
賣豆腐花果兩間鋪低過成本賣豆腐花都得
國泰買油買貴左唔通就可以叫回水
2018-12-06 22:22:06


有優惠梗係比正常價平啦,一蚊一隻雞,一蚊張飛機票都係平過成本價好多,咁廣告引我去買幾樣特價優惠咪買囉,俾錢囉
2018-12-06 22:25:00
系統完全正常運作,由買野結脹到確認文件都冇問題,係有人入錯資料,同冇人覆檢

買家就算覺得可能個價錢出錯,唔通就冇豐澤低價出售既可能性
以前雷射結業果陣有d貨賣好平低過市價,
每年都有唔少商鋪係呢個時間做清貨開倉大減價
back friday一拆都有
賣豆腐花果兩間鋪低過成本賣豆腐花都得
國泰買油買貴左唔通就可以叫回水

睇咗誠哥d賣樓廣告買咗新樓,仲未交樓,呢兩個月覺得貴咗樓價好唔合理,可唔可以取消買樓合約??
2018-12-06 22:28:02
我要iPad Pro
2018-12-06 22:31:45
系統完全正常運作,由買野結脹到確認文件都冇問題,係有人入錯資料,同冇人覆檢

買家就算覺得可能個價錢出錯,唔通就冇豐澤低價出售既可能性
以前雷射結業果陣有d貨賣好平低過市價,
每年都有唔少商鋪係呢個時間做清貨開倉大減價
back friday一拆都有
賣豆腐花果兩間鋪低過成本賣豆腐花都得
國泰買油買貴左唔通就可以叫回水

睇咗誠哥d賣樓廣告買咗新樓,仲未交樓,呢兩個月覺得貴咗樓價好唔合理,可唔可以取消買樓合約??

冇錢買樓,唔知係咪撻訂賠雙,商業社會,明買明賣
2018-12-06 22:34:21
Mistake as to terms of contract + known/ reasonably ought to be known + mistaken party is NOT at fault

1. Hartog v Colin & Shield
Vendor OFFERED mistakenly large quantity of goods at a price per pound (whereas meant to offer the price per piece)
> void

2. Smith v Hughes
Purchaser ACCEPTED mistakenly
Vendor NO misrepresentation > acceptance VALID

出offer嗰個有規定個offer要合理
邊度有authority?
我鐘意出offer$1買你部法拉利有冇問題?
你可以唔accept

如果要apply unilateral mistake
我上面講左 一係offeror出左offer想反口 Hartog v Colin & Shield
一係offeree 受mislead想反口 Smith v Hughes

你based on 自己on9 accept左
已經唔付合’mistaken party is NOT at fault ’
On9係法律上有remedy架咩?

我再問多次
如果一個contract都成立左
單方面覺得唔合理可以推翻
咁仲要contract law黎把撚呀?

Likewise, an employee's mistake led a seller to advertise printers online at $66 each, instead of $3854 each. Buyers, knowing the price was a mistake, snapped them up. The Singapore Court of Appeal refused to uphold any resulting contracts (Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502, approved in Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257).




首先比樣嘢要澄清左嘅就係

就算有formation of contract 法庭都係有理由因為mistake grounds 而唔去 grant specific performance 而唔係之前你所講嘅唔可以

你亦都睇返嗰個page



The fact that 原價係冇stated同埋冇crossed out 就咁state個price 已經係有理由objectively 令到消費者懷疑佢係唔係出錯
2018-12-06 22:35:20
假設你真係去告豐澤
個官問你點解你完全無懷疑過係標錯價,咁你會點答?

以為係聖誕限量大特賣得唔得?

無話唔得嘅,個官肯信你咪得

事實上豐澤真係做緊特價promotion, 有d 貨品的確賣298,只係可能有IT set 錯野,唔係沒得打wo
吹水台自選台熱 門最 新手機台時事台政事台體育台娛樂台動漫台Apps台遊戲台影視台講故台健康台感情台潮流台上班台財經台飲食台旅遊台學術台校園台汽車台音樂台創意台硬件台攝影台玩具台寵物台軟件台活動台電訊台直播台站務台成人台黑 洞