Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Adjusts Prices After Sales Error
An anonymous reader writes "On December 23, Amazon advertised a 'buy one get one free' sale on DVD box-sets, but apparently did not test the promotion before going live. When anyone placed two box-sets in their cart, the website gave a double discount — so the 'grand total' shown (before order submission) was $0.00 or some very small amount. Despite terms stating that Amazon checks order prices before shipping, Amazon shipped a large number of these orders. Five days later (December 28), after orders had been received and presumably opened, Amazon emailed customers advising them to return the box-sets unopened or their credit cards would be charged an additional amount (more threads). Starting yesterday, Amazon has been (re)charging credit cards, often without authorization. On Amazon's side, they didn't advertise any double discount, and the free or nearly-free box-sets must have cost them a mint. But with Amazon continually giving unadvertised discounts that seem to be errors, is 'return the merchandise or be charged' the new way that price glitches will be handled?"
Back when the NVIDIA GeForce4Ti4600 was released, BestBuy's online store had pre-orders for them up at an erroneous price (very low for what the card cost). BestBuy caught it after a few thousand orders had been placed and invalidated the orders as made, but at least compromised. Those of us who placed orders got $50 off the actual price the card should have been sold for. I think we were all happy enough with that since I don't recall any legal action being taken for it.
Amazon are comitting fraud if they don't have permission to take the money. Morally the people should pay but legally they don't have to. Anyone remember the Dixons £100 Kodak cameras some years ago? At least one person bought a whole bunch of them in the hope Dixons would cough up, they did and the person(s) sold the cameras on eBay and used the money to buy a top-notch camera. It seems companies aren't being so nice anymore when it comes to cock-ups they themselves make.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I don't know about US law, but in the UK once the goods have been paid for and received, the contract of sale has been established and they couldn't do anything about it. They agreed to sell the goods for a particular price, and provided the goods. I don't see how they could demand additional payment.
Think about it this way: You go to Asda (or Wal-Mart or whatever) and buy something. If the supermarket decided that there was an error in the price, or found that their till has miscalculated some promotion in some way, could they come to your house and demand more money or the goods back? No, they couldn't.
As an interesting side point, the supermarket near me will effectively pay you to take home food from the reductions counter when their tills apply a promotional discount greater than the price the food has been reduced to! I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on if they demanded it back after the sale had completed.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
This is not exactly unique for Amazon. It is quite common that companies send goods to people (mostly registered customers) that they have not ordered, and supply an invoice. People either have to just pay, or to call the company, complain and return the goods.
It is easy to suspect that Amazon did this on purpose.
In Sweden politicians are talking about writing a law that will basically give the cunsumers the right to keep whatever is sent to them, even if they never ordered it.
I sometimes order things from my Cable-TV/Internet-provider on their webpage. The conditions are often very unclear - to the point I suspect they are vague on purpose.
First of all you cannot be a party to a contract when you are under the influence period. That is why car sales need a notary to verify the sale.
This in particular is a clear case of Unjust Enrichment.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
This is one of the reasons I like the e-card service my bank provides. It allows you to create a virtual one-time credit card with a specified amount of money for on-line shopping. This makes sure you don't get charged for more than you specify (among other things).
They don't realize that the common purchaser can issue a chargeback on the second transaction by Amazon, and despite all of the action taken by Amazon, they will still lose it in arbitration. It was their responsibility to charge correctly the first time, and they failed to do such. Unless they had a policy that was adequately (note that adequately means that the common customer must be able to readily find the link, little 2-point font links at the bottom of a long-scrolling page do not count) displayed at the time of purchase that gave them specific right to do this (which they don't) and the customer accepted, they'll be stuck paying for arbitration for every single charge, in addition to giving the money back to the common purchaser.
Not that I think they really did, but is it even legal for them to pull this bait and switch?
No. You can't ask somebody to pay one price for something and then charge them something else, even if you've previously told them the terms will be what you later change them back to be. This is called the "last shot" rule: the last exchange between vendor and purchaser determines what's in a contract: if it contradicts anything agreed previously, then the previous agreement is cancelled.
They can't charge your card without your authorization, right? RIGHT?!
Right. So you talk to your bank and ask them to charge it back. The bank will ask a few question and do so, the money appearing back in your account after ~7 days in my experience. At the other end, Amazon will receive a number of charges from their bank for the privelege of dealing with the mess. Serves 'em right.
Just to clarify before anyone goes off on me for leaving it out. Amazon would need to go though a court to get the money. It has no right to collect on it's own so in that they certainly are in the wrong.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
Under English common law you're not bound by a contract if you make a mistake on price (or something else) and the other party suspects you're making a mistake and takes advantage of it. Here, I think most people would have realised this was a mistake by Amazon's systems.
Disclaimer: I've no idea what the position is in the US (and whether it varies State by State). But safe to say your post is not necessarily correct.
Yes, if you read the email it is on Amazon's dime. As I said, they have been extremely reasonable with me in numerous occasions.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
From the legal side:
The buyer (customers) clearly knew that this deal was too good and an error. Any reasonable person would think so. In this case, the buyer is at fault for knowingly taking advantage of the seller (Amazon) and the seller's unintended sale at this discount. Any judge would find in favor of the seller in this situation. You can use the law to protect yourself but you can't use it to inflict undue harm on to others.
I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. Do not rely on this, as it is not legal advice, but merely another
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you