I once ordered a photocopier. The quote said it came with a stand. When it arrived without a stand I contacted the supplier. They said that the honest truth was that they hadn't included it when they had priced the quote but had included it as part of the description by mistake.
Did I insist that they supplied it within the price? Well I could have & they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. What I actually did was suggest they supplied it at their cost price. They of course readily accepted my offer.
Sometimes life is all about doing the right thing & not all about being a barrack room lawyer. Some of us believe in that, others clearly don't.
Oh and the ASA did not make a
Ruling in this case.
Here is their list of Rulings containing the word cycle so you can check
OK it's not a ruling. However it is most certainly a finding, and it has legal effect. The effect is that if the advert isn't removed immediately then the ASA will make an informal request for the advert to be removed, and if that isn't agreed to it will make a ruling.
I think you're wrong about definitely having a right to insist that the photocopier stand be supplied. The rule in Hartog v Colin & Shields is I think capabIe of being interpreted with generosity to suppliers.
However more importantly, your point about a small problem with a photocopier is very different to a large problem with a costly consumer purchase where supplier mistake concerning the promise made, isn't even slightly at issue.
You seem to be saying that whether I who agreed with the OP am right or wrong about the law, whether she is right or wrong in law, she is still being unfair, that the law has no relevance to fairness in this instance. Yet then when you explain why you think she was being unfair, your only argument seems to be that you think she was wrong in law. Baffling.
The law of contract in consumer cases is incredibly fair in the vast majority of cases, likewise equity. What is fair shapes more than anything else, both the development of the law, and the outcome of any proper legal analysis.
The reason I deleted my post is because this could go on for a while, and it's a waste of time. I think you're wrong about the law, and you're arguing in a very hostile way about what you think the law is, without it being obvious that you understand it. Your ad homs about lawyers understanding law in a matter which you yourself insist is legal, just compound the pointlessness of this discussion.
