Website sold me a product at the wrong (lower) price

Forums › Off topic › Website sold me a product at the wrong (lower) price - my rights?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#445646 4-Mar-2011 20:17

Oblivian: And rightfully add this in their T&C of using the site too..

Prices

We can change our prices at any time before accepting an order. Also, we can change our prices without prior notice.

Errors and Omissions (Mistakes!)

We pride ourselves in getting things right, but sometimes errors and omissions (mistakes) might occur with any of our advertising, quotes, invoices or acknowledgements. Sorry. Due to our administrative processes, mistakes might be discovered up to 30 days after the goods are delivered to you. If we discover a mistake we’ll let you know promptly, and give you the option of retuning the goods for a full refund.

and if you (as the buyer) clicked a button or a tickbox saying i accept the linked terms and conditions while checking out your order, you are therefore agreeing to them and they are enforceable.

if the T&C's are just a link on the bottom of any webpage, then they are deemed to be inadquately provided and therefore its unreasonable to enforce them

IANAL, btw. Just remember reading an article on this.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#445648 4-Mar-2011 20:23

Talkiet:
Handle9:
Talkiet:
It was clearly a genuine and accidental pricing mistake and trying to take advantage of it by buying THREE of the items is (in my opinion) a malicious act.

How do you know it's a mistake? They haven't said it's a mistake, they've said they're out of stock. You are inferring it's a mistake. All they had to do was say "We made a mistake". They didn't say that, they said we're out of stock.

If someone buys 3 items on sale are they being malicious, even if it's a price that seems too low? I would say they are being capitalists. That's the world we live in.

If you make a mistake and own up to it then it's a different situation. That someone takes advantage of your mistake and you don't own up to it that's your problem not theirs. If you tell lies then it's your problem not theirs. If you say "I made a mistake" then morally and legally you're ok.

I disagree with you. It looks vastly more likely to be a mistake on the retailers part.

As I said in another post, come up with another credible reason for them listing the product at a small fraction of the cost price.

I firmly believe the OP is trying to take advantage of an honest mistake badly handled by the retailer.

Even if the retailer should have immediately fessed up, I don't believe that they should be punished for the thick end of $1500 when the OP won't be out of pocket, and when, in my opinion, most reasonable people would have immediately realised it was a mistake.

But then again, opinions differ and apparently quite a few people believe that honest mistakes should be incredibly toughly punished.

Cheers - N

I don't disagree that it's more likely to be a mistake than the supplier being out of stock. What the retailer is not being IMO is honest. Therefore I don't see how it's an honest mistake. If it's an honest mistake all they have to do is say "This is a mistake" . They haven't. The OP isn't complaining about a mistake. The OP is complaining about an implausible excuse for a mistake.

They have said it is out of stock but they also say that there is stock on their website. Either they are telling porkies to the OP, they are being misleading on their website or they are incompetent. If they are incompetent they can get out of it by saying so. All they have to do is say so. They have not.

If the retailer is not honest then they deserve everything they get. If they made a mistake they should have owned up to it not made excuses. They haven't. At that point tough luck. If it costs them $1500 that is their problem. Why should the OP be penalised for their lies?

Equally why if they don't have stock why should other consumers be penalised for their incompetence in saying they have stock that they haven't fixed even though it's obvious to them they don't. This whole thing smells of BS and not from the OP.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#445651 4-Mar-2011 20:35

I give up.

- Retailer made a (possibly automated) reasonably obvious mistake.

- OP tried to take advantage of this and got annoyed when retailer didn't handle the situation perfectly.

Apparently a lot of people have the same mindset that they are entitled to take advantage of these mistakes, and are prepared to latch onto any additional mistakes the retailer may have made for their own (purchasers) greedy benefit.

I've seen astonishing acts of kindness and selflessness in Chch over the last week or so, and the petty self centred greed shown here is simply pathetic.

It was a MISTAKE, you (OP and others with the same view) DON'T DESERVE to benefit from it. Pull your collective heads in.

I'm done - I honestly don't think there's any benefit discussing this further so I don't care what provocation, or what words you try and put in my mouth.

Kindest regards
Neil G

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#445652 4-Mar-2011 20:39

Talkiet: I give up.

- Retailer made a (possibly automated) reasonably obvious mistake.

- OP tried to take advantage of this and got annoyed when retailer didn't handle the situation perfectly.

Apparently a lot of people have the same mindset that they are entitled to take advantage of these mistakes, and are prepared to latch onto any additional mistakes the retailer may have made for their own (purchasers) greedy benefit.

I've seen astonishing acts of kindness and selflessness in Chch over the last week or so, and the petty self centred greed shown here is simply pathetic.

It was a MISTAKE, you (OP and others with the same view) DON'T DESERVE to benefit from it. Pull your collective heads in.

I'm done - I honestly don't think there's any benefit discussing this further so I don't care what provocation, or what words you try and put in my mouth.

Kindest regards
Neil G

Personally I'm offended by your response. We're discussing a situation and because other people have a different point of view it shouldn't descend into name calling.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79284 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#445655 4-Mar-2011 20:44

I actually don't see name calling in the previous post. As it was pointed, different opinions.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#445657 4-Mar-2011 20:46

freitasm: I actually don't see name calling in the previous post. As it was pointed, different opinions.

This is going well OT but is calling someone greedy and self centred for having a different point of view not name calling? Equally if I'me being over sensitive I'm happy to cop that.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#445659 4-Mar-2011 20:58

IANAL etc. IlDuce suggests the reason given by the company may be correct, and that this might be a common business practice by some companies. If so, this is annoying if for no other reason than it is a waste of time for someone else's potential benefit.

If a seller is regularly charging credit cards before confirming availability of goods, where there is a very good chance the goods will not be available (eg; end-of-line items), this is something most people will regard as unethical business practice. It can be a substantial inconvenience and waste of time if the goods are not available + any wait for the credit card refund.

If so the company needs to update its procedures to (at minimum) ensure that credit cards are not charged until confirming availability with the supplier. For end-of-line items it is somewhat predictable this might happen.

The only way anyone is going to know if this is a common business practice by the company concerned, is if the company is named.

Who knows, it looks to me like that price was a genuine mistake, but they are being silly about it. If that is all it is, I would not waste any time litigating no matter the benefit.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#445700 5-Mar-2011 00:17

gzt: IANAL etc. IlDuce suggests the reason given by the company may be correct, and that this might be a common business practice by some companies. If so, this is annoying if for no other reason than it is a waste of time for someone else's potential benefit.

If a seller is regularly charging credit cards before confirming availability of goods, where there is a very good chance the goods will not be available (eg; end-of-line items), this is something most people will regard as unethical business practice. It can be a substantial inconvenience and waste of time if the goods are not available + any wait for the credit card refund.

If so the company needs to update its procedures to (at minimum) ensure that credit cards are not charged until confirming availability with the supplier. For end-of-line items it is somewhat predictable this might happen.

The only way anyone is going to know if this is a common business practice by the company concerned, is if the company is named.

Who knows, it looks to me like that price was a genuine mistake, but they are being silly about it. If that is all it is, I would not waste any time litigating no matter the benefit.

Taking the online retailer's explanation at face value, it may be possible that stocks had been confirmed by a wholesaler who then sold them to another retailer that had begged and pleaded to get the items. The wholesaler presumably had real-time records that our online retailer links to, and may also have discovered a delay between a walk-in customer picking up the products and the overworked stock controller keying in the transaction to their stock database.

So yes, procedures need to be tightened up. And no, I don't think its reasonable for online customers to cry foul whenever their retailer's explaination gives them an opportunity to twist it up to their benefit. Afterall the retailer has offered a full refund.

Time to find a new industry!

Satch

1985 posts

Uber Geek

#445760 5-Mar-2011 11:39

OMG, I just spent 10mins tapping out a reply, only for GZ to decide to "lose" it. So I will summarise what I said briefly.

It's a shame that one or two on here have judged me as greedy and immoral, even after I have clearly spelt out the facts of my case. But having been around GZ for some time now, and seen similar posts like this in the past, I know there are always those critical people who like to jump on posts like mine. I also appreciate the posts of support from the people who have understood my situation properly.

For the one or two who haven't quite understood the situation, you might like to read this next bit carefully. The company in question cancelled my order soley based on a stock issue. In the one email and three phone calls, this has been their only and consistent reason for cancelling my order. And all this happened while they were updating their website with price and stock level information (which both INCREASED remember, after they told me they had no stock). This is very underhanded in my book, and is the sole reason/argument for my case. This is what I will pursue if I take the matter further, and the Citizen's Advice Bureau (CAB) have told me I have a case based on these facts, and also the fact that they accepted my order by way of issuing a tax invoice/receipt, and charging my credit card.

The only advantage that I have ever tried to take is to purchase three of the product for my own use, at what I thought was a very good price and cost effective for me to do so. Now that I think of it (because this was never my line of thinking), had I been trying to take advantage in a malicious way, I would have tried to buy all 18 of the product, and dumped them on Trademe/Ebay for a minimal profit per unit to shift them quickly, but which still would have netted me an overall profit to make it worthwhile. I would imagine that's how a "greedy" person would have done it.

With the advice that the CAB gave me, and links to the Consumer Guarantees and Fair Trading Acts, I need to now do some reading and decide if I do want to take this further. I'm still waiting for the director of the company to call me about the issue, but that seems unlike to happen given they avoided me for most of Friday anyway.

If this was one of the small fly by night operations on the net, then I wouldn't bother trying to pursue this as it would crush a small operator. But this is a big NZ e-commerce company who have been very underhanded in my opinion, and I don't think they should be able to get away with tactics like this. Again had they told me it was a honest pricing mistake (they didn't and still haven't, so I cannot "assume" this), then I would have let the matter go as we all make mistakes. But the reasons they gave me completely contradicted what they were advertising and changing on their website, so that is the line I will pursue. Luckily I have screenshots of their website at each main point of the situation.

Thanks everyone for listening :)

Cheers.

chriswiggins

413 posts

Ultimate Geek

#445770 5-Mar-2011 12:11

Take it to the Disputes Tribunal. They are being absolute d**ks about it.

I understand how some people take this as being greedy, but the retailer is being dishonest and THAT is bad business practice which deserves to be acted apon.

lokeynz

105 posts

Master Geek

#445806 5-Mar-2011 15:48

I work for an IT company with an online store, products/pricing/stock levels are all fed directly from the supplier, occasionally they'll screw up pricing on a product and we'll get a flood of orders for it.
Sometimes we spot it as the order comes in, sometimes the supplier will just wear it, but in a case like this they would advise that there was a mistake in pricing and that the product can't be supplied at that price.
We advise the purchaser of the mistake and arrange for refund immediately.
99% of people accept that the pricing was a mistake and most were simply 'giving it a go' as it seems you were by purchasing 3 at what was obviously an incorrect price.

There is never any intention to mislead customers with incorrect pricing, contacting clients and giving refunds chews up time and money for nothing (we end up wearing the card processing fee), luckily we haven't had anyone so arrogant to even suggest disputes tribunal yet.

Handle9

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#445807 5-Mar-2011 15:56

lokeynz: I work for an IT company with an online store, products/pricing/stock levels are all fed directly from the supplier, occasionally they'll screw up pricing on a product and we'll get a flood of orders for it.
Sometimes we spot it as the order comes in, sometimes the supplier will just wear it, but in a case like this they would advise that there was a mistake in pricing and that the product can't be supplied at that price.
We advise the purchaser of the mistake and arrange for refund immediately.
99% of people accept that the pricing was a mistake and most were simply 'giving it a go' as it seems you were by purchasing 3 at what was obviously an incorrect price.

There is never any intention to mislead customers with incorrect pricing, contacting clients and giving refunds chews up time and money for nothing (we end up wearing the card processing fee), luckily we haven't had anyone so arrogant to even suggest disputes tribunal yet.

The difference here between your companies approach and the one the OP is dealing with is that the retailer hasn't admitted a pricing mistake. They have claimed a stock level error but not corrected it on their web site.

Your company handles things in a manner which is both ethically and legally acceptable. The company the OP is dealing with is making excuses that don't make sense. If they want to be treated in a manner which isn't arrogant they shouldn't treat their customers like idiots who can't put two and two together.

The solution to this from the retailer is to be honest and fair which is exactly what your company does. The company the OP is dealing with does not appear to be being honest. At that point who why does the OP have to be fair?

Satch

1985 posts

Uber Geek

#445839 5-Mar-2011 18:57

lokeynz: I work for an IT company with an online store, products/pricing/stock levels are all fed directly from the supplier, occasionally they'll screw up pricing on a product and we'll get a flood of orders for it.
Sometimes we spot it as the order comes in, sometimes the supplier will just wear it, but in a case like this they would advise that there was a mistake in pricing and that the product can't be supplied at that price.
We advise the purchaser of the mistake and arrange for refund immediately.
99% of people accept that the pricing was a mistake and most were simply 'giving it a go' as it seems you were by purchasing 3 at what was obviously an incorrect price.

There is never any intention to mislead customers with incorrect pricing, contacting clients and giving refunds chews up time and money for nothing (we end up wearing the card processing fee), luckily we haven't had anyone so arrogant to even suggest disputes tribunal yet.

Ok maybe I am starting to get a little ratty now about the people replying here saying that it is not fair that I try to take advantage of a pricing mistake, without reading my posts properly. I'd be the first to agree that it wouldn't be fair, but that is not the situation according to the company I am dealing with.

It sounds like your company deals with pricing mistakes openly and honestly. I applaud that, and can accept that mistakes are made. But *YET AGAIN*, the company I am dealing with told me it was a stock issue which completely conflicted with the way they continued to update their website until they decided to remove the product from their website completely when I mentioned I was going to take advice. The director was also meant to call me, but never did as he/she was constantly unavailable to talk.

And finally, in terms of how many of the product I ordered, just what is the magical number that turns an honest purchase into a greedy one?? I have three PCs that I wanted to put SSD's into. I don't think that was unreasonable in the slightest.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#445912 6-Mar-2011 02:36

So, if they set the wrong price (the higher one) and you bought the goods, and then they corrected the price to the correct lower one, I take it you would accept that and that you have in fact paid too much.

Satch

1985 posts

Uber Geek

#445936 6-Mar-2011 10:21

tdgeek: So, if they set the wrong price (the higher one) and you bought the goods, and then they corrected the price to the correct lower one, I take it you would accept that and that you have in fact paid too much.

So we continue to talk about pricing mistakes and not (conflicting) stock issues as is the situation in my case...

If I purchased a product from a retailer at a certain price and the price of that item reduced after my purchase, as long as they didn't have some sort of price promise guarantee then I'd have to accept that. They wouldn't have made me buy the item at the price I did, I would have chosen to do so myself.

Personally I research prices of products prior to making a purchase (over a certain value where it is beneficial to do so). And I purchased a product not too long ago that reduced in price days later by $100's of dollars. The company involved didn't have a price promise, so I just had to grin and bear it.

Well I've been drawn into a pricing mistake/reduction argument which is really pointless in terms of my situation, so I'll finish up here...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4