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?"
(Morality aside,) Wise customers either cancelled their credit cards or placed blocks on Amazon being able to charge them.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Ok, let me get this straight. Your online service, which you claim to test rigorously, fails to charge me. We (myself and your system) agree on a price for these goods ($0.00), you charge me for it, send me my merchandise, and now you're trying to make me give it back or pay more for it? IANAL but the legality of this seems rather dubious.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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.
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).
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
All the consumer has to do is refuse the charge. Once charged, billed and shipped, the transaction is done.
Amazon committing a charge after the transaction has completed should be considered fraud and treated as such.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
There is such a thing as an "implied contract" when a Sale is made. The contract terms such as "All Sales Final" must be clearly stated, the price, any warranty, return periods, etc. Anything someone on EITHER side does to dishonor the terms is breach and possible fraud. I run a small business (actually it is the spouse business) and one time I sold an expensive item (jewely) for about 80% of what it should have sold for, it was a credit card sale so we COULD have ran a seperate charge for the difference. The honest thing to do (and legal) was to EAT the difference. Amazon should do the same. If they don't they just lost me as a customer. And hopefully those they tried to re-bill are no longer customers. Barnes & Noble dot com here I come! Your analog to the money at the bank is flawed, it's not at all the same thing. The product belongs to you as you honored your side of the contract. The money bag you knew clearly was the property of someone else which you had no rights either stated or implied to possess. That makes it theft.
Have you ever looked at your check in a restaurant and noticed that the waiter forgot to charge you for something your ordered and ate? What do you do? I tell the waiter so they can add it to the check. Then I pay for what I ate. All of it. It's the right thing to do and that's the kind of society I want my kids to inherit.
In your world, there is no honor system. You'd sneer and leave the resaurant without paying what you owe. You'd pat yourself on the back while the restaurant owner struggles to pay his workers and keep the doors open.
In my example, there is a moral choice on the table. I made it one wa and you made it the other way. Who is the better man?
I don't think it is. Unjust Enrichment would be if the customer agreed to pay $50, but Amazon only charged them $5. Then the customer would be obligated to pay the remaining $45 because both parties agreed on the price of $50.
In this case however, Amazon meant to charge $50, but only charged the customers $0.01. The customers didn't agree to $50, they agreed to $0.01. Since, at the time, both parties agreed to the price of $0.01, it doesn't matter if Amazon changes their mind after the fact, the deal's done.
Amazon's pissed they lost a lot of money, but they're not allowed to retroactively charge people extra. I think their only option is to treat it as a sunk cost and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Maybe not
Whenever that happens to me I tip the amount that was left off of the check. So if they gave me my 5.99 appetizer for free, I tip an extra 6$.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Law and Honor are two seperate entities. The law states that when two parties agree on a price and completed a transaction, the transaction if final. If Amazon wants to request that these people pay for the intended amount, they are free to do so. Charging someones account without their authorization in not the honorable or legal thing to do. A lot of people feel that they have been screwed over by a legal system that is drastically in favor of corporations. When they have a situation where for once the law is on their side, they will take it. Honor will only take a corportation so far in a world where corporations tell people that EULA that they didn't sign overrides their rights to fair use, where phone companies can send you a notice in your bill telling you that you have agreed to waive your constitutional right to a jury trial. If corporations want to play games with legal loop holes, they should not expect people to let them skirt around the legal system in order to force those people to do the honorable thing.
Maybe they did, and maybe it was just an honest thing that didn't get properly QA'd -- bugs *do* happen in software, as most people here can attest since we write and maintain it. But, testing is their responsibility before they have customers using it. If Amazon made the mistake, then Amazon can eat the cost of it. I agree with with you on that point.
Unless you have any evidence to suggest that outsourced Indian programmers who can't add are responsible for this, that just seems way over the top. Sad to see that racial intolerance will get you a +5 insightful mod on Slashdot nowadays.
For all you know the guy who fscked this up is a white American protestant living in Buttfuck Idaho -- possibly a whole team of them. Basically saying it's the fault of a bunch of illiterate Indians is pointless.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You go in to a big-box store. You see a special two-for one advertised and buy the products. When you get to the register the clerk mis-rings it, punching in the wrong amount. Do you A.) Politely notify the clerk of their mistake and pay the difference, or B.) Walk out knowing you just got away with not paying what you expected to.
I know what I'd do. Even though I hate big, faceless corporations, I'd pay. I wouldn't even think about it. That's just the way I was raised, I guess. Would I do the same thing on Amazon? I'd like to say yes, because I think the morality is pretty clear, but I'm actually unsure of what I would have done in this situation. The real difference is looking somone in the face and knowing, "hey, this person will probably get shit if I do this and their boss finds out." Without that immediate, person to person contact, the urge to put one over on a big corporation when no one will get hurt is pretty tempting.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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