fullfilled by amazon prime

Mr_Norrell

unholyangel wrote: »

They could take them to court - and they'd win (think the case thats relevant is hartog v colins & shields - or it may be shields & colins in which the judgement said " I have seen the witnesses and heard them, and in this case can form no other view than that there was an accident. The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff could not reasonably have supposed that that offer contained the offerers' real intention. Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. That means that there must be judgment for the defendants.")

Of course whether they'd be able to afford legal action or not is another matter.

For future reference, the case citation is: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566.

The defendants entered into a contract to sell 3000 Argentinian hare skins to the claimants. However by mistake they offered them for sale at 10d per pound instead of 10d per piece. When the mistake was discovered, the defendants refused to deliver. The claimants brought a claim against the defendants.

It was held that the claim couldn't succeed because the claimants could not reasonably have thought that the defendants' offer matched their true intention. (i.e. the objective test)

marleyboy

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

They'd use the software to price match not undercut which is not cheating a system. It's just automating as someone else has said to reduce workload. We use software to make our lives easier, we all do it, that's just modern living, it is certainly not cheating. If they all used it to undercut each other then by the very nature of the software they'd all end up charging 1p. Obviously they don't use it that way.

Ahh.......My apologies if thats the way this software runs, I was led to believe it was an undercut as oppose to just a price match. If that is the case, then surely the responsibility would be covered by a licence or agreement between Company and the software they are using.

When I worked for a leading bank, the Software was upgraded by Vista and it caused no ends of problems, right down to the cashpoints. I still remember passing the ATMs with that old familiar Microsoft is not responding logo.

The point is, it was the responsibity of the software to run effeciantly, as a result the software company had to not only send a fleet of programmers to fix the issues, but pay a nominal fine for every second tthe system was not producing, that was on top of any losses to our customers as a result. If this is legitamate 3rd party app, a licence between both company and Amazon would exist as a form of agreement.

I genuinely did not realise this software was legitimate and re-tract my statement that it serves them right with my sincerest apologies.

cookie365

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

For future reference, the case citation is: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566.

The defendants entered into a contract to sell 3000 Argentinian hare skins to the claimants. However by mistake they offered them for sale at 10d per pound instead of 10d per piece. When the mistake was discovered, the defendants refused to deliver. The claimants brought a claim against the defendants.

It was held that the claim couldn't succeed because the claimants could not reasonably have thought that the defendants' offer matched their true intention. (i.e. the objective test)

But that scenario, beyond the unilateral mistake, is nothing like this one.

In H v C&S the plaintiff was trying to enforce the contract. Voiding it just kept everyone in the same place.

Here, the goods have been delivered (or will be) and may not even exist by the time proceedings are issued or come to trial. What then? There was clearly no intention to form a contract at the 'usual' price, so what exactly would the seller sue for?

unholyangel

cookie365 wrote: »

But that scenario, beyond the unilateral mistake, is nothing like this one.

In H v C&S the plaintiff was trying to enforce the contract. Voiding it just kept everyone in the same place.

Here, the goods have been delivered (or will be) and may not even exist by the time proceedings are issued or come to trial. What then? There was clearly no intention to form a contract at the 'usual' price, so what exactly would the seller sue for?

Their losses - ie the cost price.

You're missing the point in the H v C&S judgement. The decision fell as it did because there was an obvious mistake made and the buyer should have realised there was a mistake. As above, it is void ab initio - from the beginning. It does not exist in any way, shape or form.

Search for unilateral mistake in contract law.
Or read this page (I can link at least half a dozen more if you dont like this one) ETA whoops, would help if i actually included the link. Sorry! :
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/mistakes-in-contracts.htm

A unilateral mistake is where one party is mistaken while the other party is aware of this mistake and takes advantage of it when forming the contract. A unilateral mistake of this manner will eliminate the consent required for the proper formation of a contract meaning that there is no contract in existence.

In a nutshell: Entering into a contract on such a basis is contrary to the requirement of good faith.

Nodding_Donkey

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

They'd use the software to price match not undercut which is not cheating a system. It's just automating as someone else has said to reduce workload. We use software to make our lives easier, we all do it, that's just modern living, it is certainly not cheating. If they all used it to undercut each other then by the very nature of the software they'd all end up charging 1p. Obviously they don't use it that way.

That is precisely what this software is designed to do.

Money-Saving-King

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

That is precisely what this software is designed to do.

No it's not. If it only had that one function then everyone who bought it would ultimately end up with their prices being 1p.

It doesn't take much to work out why that would be the end result so obviously that's not the scripts main purpose.

Let me explain it simply. It's a price managing tool for those with a high amount of goods listed. It's so they can set it to a hands off method of setting the prices however the seller wants.

If they all set it to go lower by 1p it would do the same for everyone who uses's that script (software). They'd basically all go to sleep then wake up finding the script had done it's magic and reduced everything to 1p because that's what they all wanted it do to, undercut.

There you have it, yes it can do that but only a fool would get it to do that because of the obvious consequences. The people in the story obviously were using it as it's intended purpose, just to help in an automated way to price match.

Their sales page say's exactly it's purpose. From what you've written I bet you haven't even looked at it's website.

Nodding_Donkey

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

If they all set it to go lower by 1p it would do the same for everyone who uses's that script (software). They'd basically all go to sleep then wake up finding the script had done it's magic and reduced everything to 1p because that's what they all wanted it do to, undercut.

Which is exactly what happened. What we don't know is whether that was because the sellers didn't set a minimum price, which makes it their fault, or the software ignored the minimum price.

Whichever, selling on price is always going to end this way and I don't see it as an 'error' so much as the sellers making a bad business decision.

visidigi

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

No it's not. If it only had that one function then everyone who bought it would ultimately end up with their prices being 1p.

It doesn't take much to work out why that would be the end result so obviously that's not the scripts main purpose.

Let me explain it simply. It's a price managing tool for those with a high amount of goods listed. It's so they can set it to a hands off method of setting the prices however the seller wants.

If they all set it to go lower by 1p it would do the same for everyone who uses's that script (software). They'd basically all go to sleep then wake up finding the script had done it's magic and reduced everything to 1p because that's what they all wanted it do to, undercut.

There you have it, yes it can do that but only a fool would get it to do that because of the obvious consequences. The people in the story obviously were using it as it's intended purpose, just to help in an automated way to price match.

Their sales page say's exactly it's purpose. From what you've written I bet you haven't even looked at it's website.

Good post!

Anyone who says the retailers were cheating needs to stop listening to the media and their mates and do some research.

The software is there to compete, to a point. The ONLY difference here is they used a third party application as they are a small business. ALL retailers have a price system like this, but when you get bigger you have it in house etc etc. Its NO different to say Amazon, PC World, John Lewis etc etc price matching, you don't think they have people doing this manually and adjusting it manually do you?!

The third party software has in their T&C's that the limit of their liability is 12 months subscription. Quite honestly, they should be insured and probably are. I suspect they are trying to get Amazon to help them with fees and postage costs etc to mitigate the impact on them - this is what the media have said.

Nodding_Donkey

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

It was a glitch with the software, everything got listed at 1p no matter what. There is no speculation as to what happened which you seem to be doing.

So the statement from Repricer Express on the BBC website is untrue then:
In a statement, Mr Doherty said Repricer Express would be investigating the cause of the problem and putting measures in place to prevent it happening again.

That would seem to imply that they don't know what happened yet.

visidigi

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

So the statement from Repricer Express on the BBC website is untrue then:
In a statement, Mr Doherty said Repricer Express would be investigating the cause of the problem and putting measures in place to prevent it happening again.

That would seem to imply that they don't know what happened yet.

No. That's a public cover my backside comment - they know exactly what happened, but they won't say in public what as, much like nearly every other company they know it could take them under.

It could be something as simple as the software minimum price limit not working so the bids kept competing until they were both at 1p.

They know whats happened, but they won't publicise it.