Web page pricing error

[Beemer]

Lets say you find a real hot deal online and you buy the item. You get your confirmation through an E-mail.

Now the retailer goes to send the hardware item and notices the rather large error and decides to not send the item or contact the buyer and try to upgrade the price.

What should the buyer do? Stick to his guns and demand the item be sent at the confirmed price?

What are the legal implications in all directions of the sale?

Educated answers please.

Cheers!

[crystaldragon]

There are a lot of variables on this one. For example in missouri on an advertised price if the error can be shown to be on the part of someone besides the retailer they aren't bound by it. For example say it is from a print ad. If the printer made the mistake the retailer isn't bound by it. If the ad is the way the store supplied it to the printer they are required to honor it.

Problem is that there isn't any real way to enforce that kind of law over the internet because it crosses both state and national boundaries. Basically buying and selling over the internet relies on trust. There are a few states that require their retailers to abide by their state laws, (on sales in and out of state) but even that varies widely.

[Ed_S]

Regardless of the actual legalities, I would say to stick to it since confirmation was recieved.
It would be different if you'd gotten a message apologizing for the error instead, but once a price is confirmed it is cast in concrete IMO.

Most vendors I've dealt with would consider this as a customer relations type of thing. They can't afford to lose sales due to a bad reputation!

...unless of course this was something blatently wrong, like a $1000 item for $10.00
Even then, they should catch it before confirming!

Hi Beemer,

The first place I would check is the vendor's website. They probably (should) have a TOS / Legal Notices page where this may be covered.

For example, www.bestbuy.com 's Legal Notices page addresses this very issue:

Errors on Our Site
Prices and availability are subject to change without notice. Errors will be corrected where discovered, and Best Buy reserves the right to revoke any stated offer and to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions including after an order has been submitted and whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged. If your credit card has already been charged for the purchase and your order is cancelled, BestBuy.com will issue a credit to your credit card account in the amount of the charge. Individual bank policies will dictate when this amount is credited to your account.

While you could argue with them, I suppose it would depend on the vendor whether to honor or deny based on the amount of error and their POV on Customer Service.

As to if they can legally do this? - we need someone who knows the law!

[Beemer]

Thanks folks. Just wondering. Subject cropped up with a friend.

Cheers!

[Brangwen]

Beemer

It seems price "mistakes" such as those described in the thread were a (un)popular topic of conversation a zillion years before the Net. I think Moses is still exchanging correspondence with the attorney for the outlet who sold him his sandals, i.e., "Guaranteed to get you to The Promised Land!" Socal, my little Techno - Peanut, I do not know the answer to this question off hand. Interesting, however: Vendor relying on Disclaimer (potentially, as I do not know which company was the impetus for the thread, so we'll assume there was a Disclaimer on Date of Purchase / Confirmation); vs. Buyer relying upon posted price and confirmation.

Both have arguments: I should think (if) a "disclaimer clothed vendor" would win the day as presumably the Buyer will have the sense to read such a notice to be an informed party to the transaction. (Admittedly, I think I have read 2 during my career as an Internet shopper in the paragraph dealing with returning of merchandise!)

On the other hand, the Buyer really should win the day because a business dealing over the medium or venue of the Internet has every reason to expect a posted price to be honored by the vendor. Put simply: posted price = posted price. Additionally, those in the business of vending on the Net understand or appreciate that Disclaimers will likely rarely be seen by anyone but the attorney for an aggrieved party (especially those that are composed in teeny weenie print and buried on a back page). A vendor should not be permitted to hide behind a blanket disclaimer which simply attempts to shield it from all liability regardless of the consequences visited upon a buyer. A vendor should monitor closely that which is advertised under its name. Additionally, a business is certainly in a better position (1) to make certain the posted prices are accurate; and, (2) a vendor is likely better able to absorb the cost of the error.

The point made in an earlier response to this query to the effect that a $1,000 item with a posted price of $10 gives a bit of leeway to the vendor (vis-a-vis a mitigating factor) makes great sense. One would think the legislative law-drafters would throw a bit of common sense into any final bill (relevant to this topic) before it is signed off on ...

It might be prudent to consider the damages to each party to the transaction when evaluating each party's argument in determining whether the vendor's disclaimer should or should not win the day.

Regarding the buyer: The buyer will have been inconvenienced, as now (if he chooses) the item must be reordered, requiring additional time and dashed hopes. Presumably the buyer misses out on the "benefit of the bargain," as the item in question likely will cost more elsewhere (he likely will not purchase the "purchased" item [again] from the same vendor who ... I'm searching for the legal term: "screwed'em." (Tough term to remember -> Latin derivation, I think). {As an aside, Latin was actually a required pre-requisite to law school admission not that long ago! Now it's just money up front ...} And the REAL price is likely higher than that which the aggrieved buyer (originally) bought it for.

Regarding the Vendor: "Who cares???" one might ask, mustn't one? Well, he and other vendors do, of course! Suppose the vendor had received 20, or maybe 2000 responses to the posted price? That adds up to a lot of "monetary pain" {See: Legal term, supra}. So the vendor's damages really are strictly monetary (which includes the cost of a few cartons of Tums, and resulting rise in the unemployment stats or a Web agency losing an account. Though it may also include the loss of future revenues, which is no fault of the buyer. And any loss may be subjugated to a 3rd party, e.g., ad agency.

So: the answer is? I have no idea, though I'd rather be in the shoes of the buyer's barrister. I do not practice that kind of law. It seems to me for the reasons stated above ... no, I still don't know.

If I find out, I shall be happy to post that good old "Black Letter Law" right here at "Station TechIMO."

Sincerely,

Yours in the law,

Brangwen

Thanks, Brangwen

[Beemer]

Thanks, Brangwen.
Very digestible.

Cheers!