fullfilled by amazon prime

Nodding_Donkey

Maybe I should have said 'we' don't know what happened yet. My point is that what happened isn't a done deal like MSK is saying.

What I don't agree with is people saying "oh poor retailers, it was an error, cancel the contract" I made an error with Saturdays lottery numbers, maybe I should get my £2 back from Camelot.

The fact that things were sold for less than they cost doesn't mean people are wrong to take advantage of that, if that was the case 'loss leaders' wouldn't be an established practice in retail.

sunnyD1

unholyangel wrote: »

Well yes legally they can.

As I've posted a few times, where a contract is formed on a mistake such as this and that mistake should have been obvious to the other party, the contract is void ab initio (void from the beginning).

However as I also said before, whether those companies can afford to take legal action or not is another matter.

No they cannot. you seem to be clutching at straws from reading your replies to other members.

When you are quoting Hartog v Colin & Shields 1939, what you are describing in modern times is simply retailers noticing they have a price mistake, and thus not having to send the items out.

. But once they've taken payments, sent out the orders, you've received your items and are on your way there's not much they can do.

an analogy would be
-walking into tescos
-seeing a sandwich priced at 10p
- you picking up the sandwich and taking it to the till
-cashier scans it, packs it in a bag for you, you pay
- you walk home, take the sandwich out of the bag
- you then eat the sandwich
- the next day you get a letter saying they will threaten to send debt collectors round.

Simply wouldn't hold up in court.

unholyangel

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Maybe I should have said 'we' don't know what happened yet. My point is that what happened isn't a done deal like MSK is saying.

What I don't agree with is people saying "oh poor retailers, it was an error, cancel the contract" I made an error with Saturdays lottery numbers, maybe I should get my £2 back from Camelot.

The fact that things were sold for less than they cost doesn't mean people are wrong to take advantage of that, if that was the case 'loss leaders' wouldn't be an established practice in retail.

Completely different scenario. For one, the store didnt enter into the contract with a view to taking advantage of your error - indeed there was no advantage to be had since you would have paid the same regardless which numbers you picked.

As I have said time and time again, the key point here is whether it was a mistake that the other party ought to have been aware of. If so that is a unilateral mistake and the result of a unilateral mistake is that the contract is void from the beginning - it never (at any point) held any validity.

Don't get me wrong, not all mistakes will void a contract - there are different types of mistakes.

But THIS type of mistake does.

unholyangel

sunnyD1 wrote: »

No they cannot. you seem to be clutching at straws from reading your replies to other members.

When you are quoting Hartog v Colin & Shields 1939, what you are describing in modern times is simply retailers noticing they have a price mistake, and thus not having to send the items out.

. But once they've taken payments, sent out the orders, you've received your items and are on your way there's not much they can do.

an analogy would be
-walking into tescos
-seeing a sandwich priced at 10p
- you picking up the sandwich and taking it to the till
-cashier scans it, packs it in a bag for you, you pay
- you walk home, take the sandwich out of the bag
- you then eat the sandwich
- the next day you get a letter saying they will threaten to send debt collectors round.

Simply wouldn't hold up in court.

You obviously have no understanding of the term "void ad initio" or or the term "unilateral mistake".

Please feel free to back up your views. I've done so (and offered to provide several more sources to back me up).

As of yet, the only thing backing up your posts seems to be....what? Your personal opinion?

timbstoke

From a bit of a read into how this software works, it looks more like a hosted service - i.e. you sign up, give it access to your Amazon account, and away it goes.

Because that one service handles all the price changes for all their clients, it presumably has additional logic in there so that if two clients selling the same widget both configure the software to beat competitors by 1p, then they'll both settle at the same price rather than undercutting each other down to a penny each.

So clearly one of two things has happened: Either this logic has fallen down, causing the prices to compete with each other and drop to a penny, or a second service has popped up which also adjusts prices, either as a competitor or a malicious attack. Either way, it listed a load of items at 1p and forced RepricerExpress to match it.

I was quite amused by the large headline print on RepricerExpress's website: "Risk free and safe in every way. RepricerExpress has built-in safeguards to make it absolutely risk-free."

Whatever happened, it sounds like not allowing for it was an act of severe negligence on the part of RepricerExpress, and I would expect that such negligence would be actionable regardless of what the contract says. It'll be interesting to see how they react to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if RepricerExpress go under in the next few months.

None of this is relevant to the OP of course. This is a risk that a business takes when they outsource both their pricing infrastructure AND their fulfillment infrastructure. They have the freedom to operate with no premises, from their spare bedroom, for an hour a day after work, and have a very nice additional income with no real work involved. On the flip side, they're vulnerable to mistakes on the part of any other link in the chain, none of whom care about their business as much as they do.

sunnyD1

unholyangel wrote: »

You obviously have no understanding of the term "void ad initio" or or the term "unilateral mistake".

Please feel free to back up your views. I've done so (and offered to provide several more sources to back me up).

As of yet, the only thing backing up your posts seems to be....what? Your personal opinion?

" Your order is an offer to Amazon to buy the product(s) in your order. When you place an order to purchase a product from Amazon, we will send you an e-mail confirming receipt of your order and containing the details of your order (the "Order Confirmation E-mail"). The Order Confirmation E-mail is acknowledgement that we have received your order, and does not confirm acceptance of your offer to buy the product(s) ordered. We only accept your offer, and conclude the contract of sale for a product ordered by you, when we dispatch the product to you and send e-mail confirmation to you that we've dispatched the product to you (the "Dispatch Confirmation E-mail"). If your order is dispatched in more than one package, you may receive a separate Dispatch Confirmation E-mail for each package, and each Dispatch Confirmation E-mail and corresponding dispatch will conclude a separate contract of sale between us for the product(s) specified in that Dispatch Confirmation E-mail. Your contract is with Amazon EU Sarl. Without affecting your right of cancellation set out in section 2 below, you can cancel your order for a product at no cost any time before we send the Dispatch Confirmation E-mail relating to that product. This right to cancel does not apply to certain categories of products and services, including digital products or software which are not supplied in a physical format (e.g. on a CD or DVD), once download or use (whichever is earlier) has begun. "


The contract has been accepted by the seller, and the buyer.

Void ab initio. A contract is null from the beginning if it seriously offends law or public policy in contrast to a contract which is merely voidable at the election of one of the parties to the contract.

??



Can you source me one, just one case, where the seller has delivered the goods to the buyer and then voided a contract?

sunnyD1

unholyangel wrote: »

You obviously have no understanding of the term "void ad initio" or or the term "unilateral mistake".

Please feel free to back up your views. I've done so (and offered to provide several more sources to back me up).

As of yet, the only thing backing up your posts seems to be....what? Your personal opinion?

I really do like your ad hominem posts.

unholyangel

sunnyD1 wrote: »

I really do like your ad hominem posts.

I see you've still not posted anything to back yourself up.

In response to your above post, see one of my previous posts where I posted:


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.

shaun_from_Africa

sunnyD1 wrote: »

Can you source me one, just one case, where the seller has delivered the goods to the buyer and then voided a contract?

Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't legally happen now.
Maybe it's not happened because when there have been previous errors the retailer was big enough to absorb the cost or if it happened with a small scale seller it was simply one or two customers that took advantage.

When you are talking about enough sales to totally bankrupt someone, they may well think that legal action is their only viable option.


One other point.
Writing in extremely large, bold and underlined font to try to make your point simply makes you look like a total pillock.

Castle

unholyangel wrote: »

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/mistakes-in-contracts.htmaith.

Actually the link you provided goes on to say

"In order for a contract to be void due to a unilateral mistake the mistake must relate to the terms and conditions of the contract. A unilateral mistake in relation to the quality of the subject matter of a contract will not result in the contract being void".

I would suggest price is not a term or condition.