Amazon Third Party pricing glitch rights

martinsurrey

OP there are 2 practical ways around this.

1) You claim that the contract has been breached by the retailer, and they don't intend to fulfill it, and you want damages, they have refunded you cash so the only loss is the loss of bargain, but you claim that the price of £1.33 per plate is not obviously low (otherwise the contract would be void), and since plates are a consumer item you can get them else where for a similar price, so there is no loss of bargain, so no damages.

2) you move on with life.

bris

StarryTowers wrote: »

Unholyangel...the price I paid was £1.33 a plate, as stated on the listing at the time, with £4.99 postage on top, I didn't think that was unreasonable given that it stated this was a "sale"

You need to understand how contracts are formed, offer and acceptance is only 2 parts that make up the contract, consideration is also a key part of it. Do you think they ever considered selling 6 plates for £1.33, no of course not, that is why a judge would lambast you for wasting his/her time on an obvious mistake.

cookie365

bris wrote: »

You need to understand how contracts are formed, offer and acceptance is only 2 parts that make up the contract, consideration is also a key part of it. Do you think they ever considered selling 6 plates for £1.33, no of course not, that is why a judge would lambast you for wasting his/her time on an obvious mistake.

You only quoted one sentence, but still didn't manage to read it!

The OP paid £1.33 for each plate.

That's at the low end of ordinarily available pricing for dinner plates.

I don't think this is a case of unilateral mistake, as I believe the OP genuinely believed £1.33 per plate was the correct price, and was getting the sort of quality you'd expect for that price.

If that's the case, the contract is NOT voidable for mistake.

But ...

Let's imagine the OP was expecting to get plates worth about £2.50 each for a nice £1.17 each discount. Their loss is therefore the extra they'd have to pay to get the same £2.50 plates elsewhere - a total of £14 for the full 12 plates. That's hardly worth suing over, especially as seems likely they're going to get to keep 2 plates worth £8 each for free.

Carrot007

cracklepop wrote: »

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/uvg/EFOSHM-Thermos-Insulated-Stainless-Steel-Flask-Bottle/B01HLTI6YO/ref=gbps_tit_s-3_26c1_42e8c3f8?smid=A1BZPWY0YDUO8W&pf_rd_p=23ae9ed5-1f81-48e2-bda6-9cc95cfc26c1&pf_rd_s=slot-3&pf_rd_t=701&pf_rd_i=gb_main&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=Z19BG927GDVH8EW7R5CE

https://www.amazon.co.uk/X-Loop-Xtreme-Sunglasses-Collection-Protection/dp/B00HZSKK50/ref=gbps_tit_s-3_26c1_ba4eac81?smid=AR00CFUBZLBEZ&pf_rd_p=23ae9ed5-1f81-48e2-bda6-9cc95cfc26c1&pf_rd_s=slot-3&pf_rd_t=701&pf_rd_i=gb_main&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=SBQPB3A5VMPQ7JKHH3JH

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grafenberg-Analogue-Stainless-Bracelet-GB205-622/dp/B00Q6KHG6E/ref=gbps_img_s-3_26c1_70897e32?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_p=23ae9ed5-1f81-48e2-bda6-9cc95cfc26c1&pf_rd_s=slot-3&pf_rd_t=701&pf_rd_i=gb_main&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=XQTP8VA8CCYAKZFSYXT4


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rapesco-Heavy-Duty-Stapler-Capacity/dp/B004JFQMC2/ref=gbps_tit_s-3_26c1_e30540b5?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_p=23ae9ed5-1f81-48e2-bda6-9cc95cfc26c1&pf_rd_s=slot-3&pf_rd_t=701&pf_rd_i=gb_main&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=G9B6BBHB5QKCQ1EEYZ8Q


The above are a selection of Amazon's top deals today. They are all showing a save message of 80% or more.

Discounts against an imaginary price that no one ever bought at do not count.

RRP never meant anything except a fictional marker to discount against to entise idiots. I thought it had been scrapped.

DoaM

I thought there needed to be provenance for any claimed discount, and that imaginary RRPs were outlawed? If yes then the quoted links would be valid examples.

cracklepop

Carrot007 wrote: »

Discounts against an imaginary price that no one ever bought at do not count.

Legally they do.

There's some very specific guidelines around what a retailer can claim as a save message and they have very little to do with what's sensible!

Anyway, that's not my point. I was merely demonstrating Amazon do regularly sell things with a "claimed" 80% discount. It's perfectly possible to buy a plate for a pound or so, therefore I wouldn't say it was obviously a pricing issue in this example.

[Deleted User]

cracklepop wrote: »

I was merely demonstrating Amazon do regularly sell things with a "claimed" 80% discount. It's perfectly possible to buy a plate for a pound or so, therefore I wouldn't say it was obviously a pricing issue in this example.

That's only a saving against RRP which are never realistically sold at that price (even though they might have been on sale for that).

I still maintain it was an obvious error which the OP tried to take advantage of (and has failed).

Amazon themselves would likely have honoured the error, but this third party seller obviously sees it as fair to refund the money paid and (seemingly) allow the customer to keep the two plates they were sent.

naedanger

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I still maintain it was an obvious error which the OP tried to take advantage of (and has failed).

So what is your evidence for maintaining that it was an obvious error? You have been challenged to justify why you believe the mistake was obvious or "an absolute steal" as you previously put it when Ikea sells plates for less than the price the op actually paid.

The op has stated they did not realise the price was a mistake. So you are close to calling them a liar. I hope you are not doing this without very good evidence.

[Deleted User]

naedanger wrote: »

So what is your evidence for maintaining that it was an obvious error?

I'm going only on what the Op has said happened. No one stands accused of telling lies.

naedanger

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm going only on what the Op has said happened. No one stands accused of telling lies.

So what have they said that makes you believe the mistake was obvious?