Am I right or are they?

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

Actually they are not. Contract is formed when an acceptance email is sent, not when dispatch has taken place.



BUT... this is what gets them off the hook:

8.5

We are under no obligation to provide the Product to you at the incorrect (lower) price, even after we have sent you a Acceptance Confirmation, if the pricing error is obvious and unmistakeable and could have reasonably been recognised by you as a mis-pricing

Plus... did the second email actually state the order has been accepted or just confirm an order ID number?

Move on op, you not on to a winner i'm afraid.

But the price was not a "mistake," it was the correct price for that tranche of stock. The reason they want to charge a higher price, is because their new stock cost them more, not really the OP's problem, if they can't source stock at the same price as before. The original price would not have been obvious it was a mistake and the seller would have to prove they didn't accept other orders at the incorrect pricing.

If the second e-mail was an "Acceptance Confirmation," then the seller has an obligation to fulfill their part of the contract. Perhaps they will take this as a lesson and amend the wording on their website.

OP, I'd suggest you take a screen print of their current terms and conditions.

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

I disagree.

What happens if the goods are packages and prepared, then the card is declined? Or if they suffered technical difficulties once the courier turned up meaning they either send a lorry full of unpaid items risking the first point or delay delivery.

It just causes more problems than its worth.

Alot of carts are not completed, its only once payment is made the customer has committed to buying the goods and the company can then spend time & effort fulfilling the order.

Also, what if the items was personalised? If the same rule applied the companies are going to be seriously affected by this.

If they form the contract at point of sale then they ezpose themself to even greater risk -- if a £10,000 car was accidently marked at £100 for example.

All very valid pints, but I think there needs to be some tightening up of the rules.

If the mistake is obvious and the buyer should have genuinely known that it was a mistake, but to up the price by ten or twenty per cent is often not really correcting a mistake; there has to be some protection for the consumer. Perhaps, the retailer should have to prove the mistake and prove that they rejected a significant proportion of orders, on the basis of the same mistake.

Flyboy152

bris wrote: »

Everything is automatic, the payment is taken by the system, not a person, this is why the problems arise after payment and the shipping clause is in there. A lot of internet based sales are after work, some times late at night and the reason the mistakes are not noticed until the office staff turn up for work.
There is however a good point about the price being correct at the point of ordering, the only time I saw a case of "loss of bargain" was when a similar thing happened in Homebase (or B&Q) with a dishwasher where the money was accepted for the machine, even though it was out of stock. The buyer took them to court and won.

But it is not difficult for the system to know how many are in stock and how many orders are taken. If a seller has ten in stock and they get nine orders, that leaves one in stock; it really is that simple.

scheming_gypsy

it doesn't work if they have a shop as well.

If they have ten in stock and somebody buys nine online, it takes payment for nine but there's still ten on the shelf. If somebody buys five of those and then somebody else buys two, there's only three left to be picked for the online buyer.
You can't tell somebody that the items they have in their hand don't exist because the system says there aren't any in stock.

Flyboy152

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

it doesn't work if they have a shop as well.

If they have ten in stock and somebody buys nine online, it takes payment for nine but there's still ten on the shelf. If somebody buys five of those and then somebody else buys two, there's only three left to be picked for the online buyer.
You can't tell somebody that the items they have in their hand don't exist because the system says there aren't any in stock.

If the shop and on-line stocking systems are linked (and there is no reason for them not to be), it shouldn't be too difficult for the system to take one way, each time one is sold, either in the shop or on-line.

scheming_gypsy

yes it does but it can't take one off the shelf. the system can take one away from the stock level on the system but it can't physically take the product off the shelf so it's still there for somebody in the shop to buy.

Flyboy152

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

yes it does but it can't take one off the shelf. the system can take one away from the stock level on the system but it can't physically take the product off the shelf so it's still there for somebody in the shop to buy.

Then that is the fault of the seller. If they can't be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and physically take it off the shelf, they have only themselves to blame.

That said, the system could quite easily reject the transaction at the shop's till.

scheming_gypsy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Then that is the fault of the seller. If they can't be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and physically take it off the shelf, they have only themselves to blame.

That said, the system could quite easily reject the transaction at the shop's till.

seriously??? is it not just easier to accept that it doesn't work that way.

People don't sit constantly waiting for an order to come through and then run round the shop picking them as soon as they come off; especially as another order can be coming through. They then can't take things out of peoples baskets if an online order has already claimed it.

The system could reject it if the stock level isn't right but it doesn't mean that it's sold or the stock level is just wrong and you'll lose customers if you start telling people that they can't buy what they have in their hand.

The same conversation has been had on another forum and the shop owner (with over 2500 products) said exactly the same as what i'm saying. The only way he could do it was to run two separate batches of stock, one for in store and one for online orders but even then they wouldn't be able to guarantee that stock levels were correct at all times. What he had to do was to put a realistic dispatch time on online orders to allow new stock to come in

Flyboy152

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

seriously??? is it not just easier to accept that it doesn't work that way.

People don't sit constantly waiting for an order to come through and then run round the shop picking them as soon as they come off; especially as another order can be coming through.
They then can't take things out of peoples baskets if an online order has already claimed it.

I can't see why not, it is a business after all and to live in the world of commerce, one has to commit themselves to doing the work.

The system could reject it if the stock level isn't right but it doesn't mean that it's sold or the stock level is just wrong and you'll lose customers if you start telling people that they can't buy what they have in their hand.

Which is better, attempt to satisfy the customer in the shop, or lose the on-line customer anyway? Either way they will lose a customer, at least they have an opportunity to sell something different to the customer in the store to make up for it. A sign on the wall next the products, warning shoppers that if they don't buy now, they will lose the opportunity to secure the bargain; might be an incentive for the store customer to buy straightaway, rather than thinking about it.

The same conversation has been had on another forum and the shop owner (with over 2500 products) said exactly the same as what i'm saying. The only way he could do it was to run two separate batches of stock, one for in store and one for online orders but even then they wouldn't be able to guarantee that stock levels were correct at all times. What he had to do was to put a realistic dispatch time on online orders to allow new stock to come in

I really can't see why that would be an issue. One off the shelf, means one less in stock, surely; how difficult can it be?

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But the price was not a "mistake," it was the correct price for that tranche of stock. The reason they want to charge a higher price, is because their new stock cost them more, not really the OP's problem, if they can't source stock at the same price as before. The original price would not have been obvious it was a mistake and the seller would have to prove they didn't accept other orders at the incorrect pricing.

If the second e-mail was an "Acceptance Confirmation," then the seller has an obligation to fulfill their part of the contract. Perhaps they will take this as a lesson and amend the wording on their website.

OP, I'd suggest you take a screen print of their current terms and conditions.

I agree, hence my later post