Bought an item on promotion price, item delivered, now price changed. Do I have to return or do they

Rambolicks

spadoosh wrote: »

Its unusual for terms and condition to be a full page of compulsory reading so dont think theres an issue in their location.

Its a very finicky thing for them to try and get out of it on. Id imagine theyd take the argument of one per customer (badly worded) or no intention to form a contract from a blatant misprice/abuse of voucher.

Should is a variable word. e.g. You should have realised it was a misprice or error. The reality is it will be implemented by a person who either writes the code or implements a price change. People make mistakes and the law allows to some extents mistakes by employees to not make the employer liable.

Ie If the person who ran the amazon twitter account announced everything was free then its incredibly unlikely it will be upheld in law.

You keep suggesting dodgy/scam/wool over eyes. Theres only one party in this scenario doing that and its really not amazon.

If amazon want an out, they can take one (no intention of contract or incorrect use of voucher code, i cant imagine them actually taking up the latter of those either and from experience of dealing with amazon i suspect theyll write it off.) and argue the case. Unless they do, there really is little point in discussing this further.

If someone announced everything was free on twitter and people ordered stuff that got delivered for free, than the blame would lie with that employee and not the person buying the items. You buy something in a shop with a price that is too low, once you're out of the door it's yours. What's the difference here?

powerful_Rogue

Rambolicks wrote: »

If someone announced everything was free on twitter and people ordered stuff that got delivered for free, than the blame would lie with that employee and not the person buying the items. You buy something in a shop with a price that is too low, once you're out of the door it's yours. What's the difference here?

I've already metioned it about 4,5 or 6 times in this thread.
Unilateral Mistake

Rambolicks

spadoosh wrote: »

Legally speaking theres a few aspects at play. So on the face of it they have to honour the price as ordered and dispatched. I reckon theyll have an argument for you breaking the terms and conditions of the use of the code though.

I suspect youll have to play this out to find out where exactly the legal position will be. Unless amazon offer the customer service route.

Theres also the argument of the intention to create legal relations. I reckon amazon can put the argument that there was never an intention from them to create legal relations with you at that price. Id say it was quite clearly an error. An 80% reduction on what is an active product (not discontinued or clearance) seems quite clearly to me a misprice/misues of voucher code.

It doesnt matter whether you thought it was a misprice or not, if it got to the legal stage a judge will consider the views of your average person. I suspect the average person would think it was misprice too.

I'm not 100% sure but Amazon are no longer selling this line of toilet rolls both the 45 and 54 rolls. Could this not be described as a clearance sale then? :j

See here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B072HTBPKD/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_size_name=1

spadoosh

Rambolicks wrote: »

If someone announced everything was free on twitter and people ordered stuff that got delivered for free, than the blame would lie with that employee and not the person buying the items. You buy something in a shop with a price that is too low, once you're out of the door it's yours. What's the difference here?

It will depend on any given situation.

The reality is its unlikely a twitter post would last that long and unlikely that the amazon checkout system would be able to support that statement. I just dont imagine the twitter handler at amazon having access to the system that sets pricing.

Lets do your shop example. A manager and a member of staff come up with an agreement to sell goods for 1p to a customer with a value of £10,000. The company have no intention of entering that contract however representatives of the company are suggesting they do. Would you think they have to honour that? They dont.

In your case there (probably) is an error with the data entered on the pricing system. Typically this could be picked up in dispatch however amazon being amazon i suspect doesnt have too much manual fulfilment. Saying stuff like 'best time for them to make a mistake because they dont have time to rectify' pretty much tells you everything else you need to know about that situation.

Theres pros and cons of things like this, pro you get something cheap, con it can be a pain, you might not, you can risk getting charged more than you thought. Then theres the social aspect, so who is losing their job, how much is this costing the company and can they afford to actually honour this. What will the reaction be in the future. Obviously theyre taking a huge hit on this product, so which products will take an increase in price.


I worked in retail. I used to spend ages giving people advice on products who would then say theyd buy it cheaper on amazon. Fair enough. Dont expect me to still have a jobe though next time you want the advice and dont expect amazon to be given you the same kind of advice. Incidently i was made redundant from that job due to a large number of store closures. Ive always wondered where my ignorant customers (typically bottom rung landlords who likened themselves to birds with their chorus of 'cheap cheap') now get their advice for what it was worth as a spotty teenager advising on household DIY.

The other one was we were told we had to sell 17 tins of paint to break even for every one tin of pain spilt. This is applicable across all goods, so things where more expensive than they directly needed to be because some people stole items, got better offers, items got damaged etc.

This is where this site seems to be a bit of an oxymoron at times. If its about championing the consumer and saving omney the best way to do it is generically across the board (as such specific offers/bargains shouldnt be advertised).

Its the same reason why loyal customers complain that new customers get better offers.

spadoosh

Rambolicks wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure but Amazon are no longer selling this line of toilet rolls both the 45 and 54 rolls. Could this not be described as a clearance sale then? :j

See here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B072HTBPKD/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_size_name=1

Nothing to do with being pulled because of a misprice?

Bad recollection of retail laws but i vaguley remember about having to lift a product from the shelves for 24 hrs if it was a misprice. Obviously not a clue if it was applicable to online or even if it would be applicable anyway but youd imagine there was a certain amount of making sure the price is right before relisting it.

Rambolicks

spadoosh wrote: »

Nothing to do with being pulled because of a misprice?

Bad recollection of retail laws but i vaguley remember about having to lift a product from the shelves for 24 hrs if it was a misprice. Obviously not a clue if it was applicable to online or even if it would be applicable anyway but youd imagine there was a certain amount of making sure the price is right before relisting it.

Makes sense. There's quite a few of these deals recently. Some rum for like a couple of quid a bottle instead of £13. Someone's gonna get a rollocking.

spadoosh

Rambolicks wrote: »

Makes sense. There's quite a few of these deals recently. Some rum for like a couple of quid a bottle instead of £13. Someone's gonna get a rollocking.

Ahh rum.... why didnt you say, ive got less morals when it involves cheap rum!! :rotfl:

Rambolicks

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I've already metioned it about 4,5 or 6 times in this thread.
Unilateral Mistake

If by unilateral mistake you are referring to law then the conclusion of this study seems in the buyer's favour once dispatch occurs:

"CONCLUSION
<18> To avoid significant losses caused by pricing errors, online retailers can employ a few
inexpensive measures to protect their business. The retailer’s site should include in its terms
and conditions a statement reserving the right to cancel orders and an explanation that the
customer’s order only constitutes an offer, which the retailer can accept by either charging
the customer’s credit card or by dispatching the product. For additional insurance, the
customer should be required to assent to those terms by clicking “I Accept” during the
checkout process. Finally, the retailer can condition contract formation on successful
completion of certain steps by the retailer, such as confirming the availability of inventory or
shipping the goods."

http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/354/vol1_no1_art2.pdf?sequence=1

spadoosh

Rambolicks wrote: »

If by unilateral mistake you are referring to law then the conclusion of this study seems in the buyer's favour once dispatch occurs:

"CONCLUSION
<18> To avoid significant losses caused by pricing errors, online retailers can employ a few
inexpensive measures to protect their business. The retailer’s site should include in its terms
and conditions a statement reserving the right to cancel orders and an explanation that the
customer’s order only constitutes an offer, which the retailer can accept by either charging
the customer’s credit card or by dispatching the product. For additional insurance, the
customer should be required to assent to those terms by clicking “I Accept” during the
checkout process. Finally, the retailer can condition contract formation on successful
completion of certain steps by the retailer, such as confirming the availability of inventory or
shipping the goods."

http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/354/vol1_no1_art2.pdf?sequence=1

Its a US based institution, im not sure on the validity of their opinion. Irrespective, our laws do allow for corrections of mistakes after delivery of the goods. Its just a whole load less contentious if you stop it before.

Rambolicks

spadoosh wrote: »

Its a US based institution, im not sure on the validity of their opinion. Irrespective, our laws do allow for corrections of mistakes after delivery of the goods. Its just a whole load less contentious if you stop it before.

Ok thanks for the heads up :beer: