Amazon Third Party pricing glitch rights

cracklepop

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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).

Yes I realize that. The point I'm making is if you go onto Amazon, and see an offer with an 80% saving, it's perfectly reasonable to assume no error has been made. The validity of the 80% saving is irrelevant.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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

Let's agree do disagree. Without knowing the specifics of the plates or the mindset of the OP I think it's hard to form that conclusion.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

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.

I agree. I think this is pretty good outcome for the OP. Unfortunately as my thoughts are yet to form the basis for UK law, this is also not particularly relevant :rotfl:

cookie365

People really need to actually read what the OP has posted.

Nowhere has the OP said that the listing mentioned an 80% discount or indeed any other discount. Just a 'sale'.

What appears to have happened is that the listing and price was for a single plate, but the details in the description were for a pack of 6.

[Deleted User]

cookie365 wrote: »

Nowhere has the OP said that the listing mentioned an 80% discount or indeed any other discount. Just a 'sale'.

Fair enough, but the effective discount on each plate was 80% off the original price of an individual plate. (£1.33 each if the OP paid £7.98 for six)
Hence the later post;

LilElvis wrote: »

It's an over 80% discount.

and also hence why it appears to be an obvious error to most respondents.

cookie365 wrote: »

What appears to have happened is that the listing and price was for a single plate, but the details in the description were for a pack of 6.

I don't think anyone was disputing this was the mistake.

DoaM

I can go to the supermarket and by a 20 piece, 4 person crockery set (i.e. 5 different items, 4 of each) for under £20.

As such I don't think this was a unilateral, obvious error - so I don't think the legislative exclusion applies here. That said ... it seems OP got a full refund and got to keep the 2 plates sent, so there's nothing more really to discuss.

cookie365

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Fair enough, but the effective discount on each plate was 80% off the original price of an individual plate. (£1.33 each if the OP paid £7.98 for six)
Hence the later post;
and also hence why it appears to be an obvious error to most respondents.

But the OP didn't know that when they placed the order!

They just saw a bunch of plates, for a price you'd expect to pay for a bunch of plates!

Honestly, MSE is a great resource, but sometimes it drives you to despair

[Deleted User]

cookie365 wrote: »

They just saw a bunch of plates, for a price you'd expect to pay for a bunch of plates!

No. They saw a bunch of £8 plates selling as a bundle for £1.33 each. To me an obvious error, to others maybe not.

Regardless, I doubt they'll be suing for "loss of bargain" given that they've had a refund and kept the plates.

cookie365

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No. They saw a bunch of £8 plates selling as a bundle for £1.33 each.

And the OP knew they were £8 plates, how exactly?

unholyangel

cookie365 wrote: »

But the OP didn't know that when they placed the order!

They just saw a bunch of plates, for a price you'd expect to pay for a bunch of plates!

Honestly, MSE is a great resource, but sometimes it drives you to despair

Surely that would depend on the plates though?

We have 3 sets of dinner/table ware. One for everyday, one for special occasions and one that was a wedding present and is never used because it was so expensive.

Even for the special occasion set, £8 per plate would be an unbelievable price - never mind £1.33.

[Deleted User]

cookie365 wrote: »

And the OP knew they were £8 plates, how exactly?

The description and photographs, I assume, would have been accurate even if the price wasn't.

I'm retiring from this discussion now, it's going nowhere.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Surely that would depend on the plates though?

And also the person.

I wouldn't have much idea about the price of plates. I guess I would be able to spot the most expensive (by the materials or maker's name in a few cases, as well as the general appearance) but given a selection of nondescript low and mid-value plates, I don't think I would be able to spot an obvious mis-price. (I might think the mispriced one seemed better value but not that it was on obvious mistake.)

{In practice I tend to over-research so I might well have uncovered the misprice by finding the plate online elsewhere at six times the price and then realise what happened. But I could completely understand why someone else would not do the same research over a low value purchase.}