Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Erases Orders To Cover Up Pricing Mistake
The Knife writes "Amazon secretly canceled orders for a large jazz CD set after realizing that it had mis-priced the item at $31 instead of its MSRP of $499. At first, inventory shortages caused the online merchant to string customers along for over a month after they placed their orders. But when Amazon realized that the box set was under-priced by $470, it simply erased all records of customers' order in their account history. No emails were sent to customers informing them of the price change or of the order cancellation. Probably because it violates Amazon's highly publicized price guarantee policy. A customer who called to complain and request the CD set at the $31 price was given a $20 discount off of his next Amazon order." A caveat: there is no external confirmation that Amazon did what is claimed here.
External confirmation? I don't even see any internal confirmation. The one link in the submission goes to the item on Amazon.com's site, at which there is one glowing five-star rated customer review. As far as I can tell, this submitter simply wrote up something that may or may not be a complete fabrication with absolutely zero backing evidence, without even so much as a "here's my blog article about the experience," and somehow it make the front page.
Where's the screenshot of the item being offered for $31? Where's the printout of the placed order? Who were those customers that Amazon strung along for over a month, and where are they complaining? Was there even more than one? Was there even one? What "highly publicized price guarantee policy?" Are you talking about? This one, which Slate describes as "not something Amazon publicizes?" You are aware that companies don't have to honor prices that are obvious misprints, right? (And that a 75-CD limited edition import CD set being sold for $31 is an obivous misprint, right?)
Man, next time I have a beef with some company, remind me to completely make some shit up about them and post it as an article here on Slashdot. I'm usually not one to gripe about the job the editorial staff does here, but you guys really drop the ball in a major way on this one. Whether you like Amazon.com or not, with nothing to back it up, this borders on outright libel.
You missed the point! Order's were canceled and the customer was not informed about it. Amazon's policy clearly states:
"and notify you of such cancellation"
What's the legality of this? I think in some jurisdictions if you go to a brickNmortar store and they've mispriced something they're legally bound to sell it to you.
You mean if the stockboy puts the wrong price on an item that's on the shelf, that's the price they the store has to sell it for? I doubt there's a law anywhere in the country that says that. Making mistakes is bad for the store's image but they aren't legally obligated to honor such an error.
If you're talking about sale prices in advertisements that's something else entirely. Though in most cases a misprint is still a misprint (they may have to put up signage to indicate that, laws vary.)
In any event, this was a mistake, no harm done, and any mature, reasonable and ethical person wouldn't expect them to honor the mistaken price. The only way this could be considered a story were if Amazon were to try to extort money after the fact or demand returns from customerswho managed to complete the purchase.
Even if this was true, and verified independently by many sources.... so what??
If you honestly thought it was 30$ to begin with and made the order and were charged for it, then you might have something to complain about it. I still think Amazon would be right to cancel the order and refund your money. So you may have been inconvenienced, but a 20$ discount demonstrates some pretty respectable behavior from Amazon.
It's a little ridiculous to expect Amazon to eat thousands of dollars in losses over an error on their website. Maybe it's just common sense, or being raised right, but when you think somebody is making a mistake and you profit from it, that is just WRONG. If you knew it was worth 10 times that price and it was a simple mistake, how moral is it to purchase it?
I have had plenty of stupid teenagers that can not do math correctly give me my change incorrectly. I have even given a 100$ bill to a girl, who gave me 130$ BACK.
The last time I had a situation like that was at CompUSA. I bought a few Motorola routers and access points and was surprised when all of them rang up for 19.99$ each. I brought it up to the clerk, got the manager, and explained that it looked like a mistake and that the labels actually said a different price. The manager, shockingly, acted like a complete dick and stated that he had no control over the information in the databases and could not do anything for me. They was not any in stock anywhere else, so I ended up getting them for my client anyways.
The point was that I TRIED to deal with them fairly. On another note, maybe that is why CompUSA went out of business.
that may be the point, but it's a weak one. is it really news to all of us that sometimes companies don't follow all the steps they say they are? if amazon had charged them, failed to deliver, and "forgotten" about the orders, that would be one thing, but the harm done here is...somewhat minimal. did anyone die b/c they didn't get their fire-sale priced box set? thought not. while i'd certainly be sad if i found out i couldn't get the deal of a lifetime, eh, you don't win the lottery every day.
This probably happens a good amount of time. Otherwise they would most likely take this singular loss to maintain their reputation. No big deal really (How is this news).
It's a little ridiculous to expect Amazon to eat thousands of dollars in losses over an error on their website.
Then they should take as a lesson and improve their site.
Maybe it's just common sense, or being raised right, but when you think somebody is making a mistake and you profit from it, that is just WRONG.
No, THEY MADE A MISTAKE. Nothing wrong about it, and the converse is equally true: if you buy a cd set from Amazon priced at $400 when another site has it priced at $30, it's your own damn fault for not checking the price.
And while we're on the subject of right and wrong, Ms. Manners, what about the retailer trying to sweep their mistake under the rug instead of manning up and admitting their mistake?
[Citation Needed]
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
i just went to amazon.co.uk --> help --> cancelling an order, then found an email address and phone number. didnt look very hard, did you?
FYI: I don't know what you guys are talking about half the time.
Ok, who let the 1L out of their cage?
Well, you're jumping to conclusions. The fact that there was a breach of contract doesn't mean that the buyer can recover for the contract price - the next best available price. You point out that once there has been an offer and acceptance, a binding contract is created and Amazon is unable to repudiate. While that is true, the contract clearly allowed Amazon to cancel a buyer's order if the price was set incorrectly which certainly was the case here. Thus, Amazon was justified in its cancellation of the buyers' orders. If there was a breach, it was only the failure to notify the buyer of the order cancellation. I'm not sure from the contract terms whether a court would find there was a breach. The terms may be read as suggesting Amazon's current policy of notification rather than binding themselves to do so. In any event, a buyer would not be able to recover for the contract price - the best available price because that does not reflect the damages actually suffered. The buyer's expectation damages ought to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed. Since Amazon's only failure was to notify him of the order cancellation, damages should be assessed based on the harm which resulted from lack of notification. In addition, it seems pretty clear in context that when UCC 2-711 speaks of the sellers failure to make delivery, it's referring to an unjustified refusal, rather than a justified refusal combined with a relatively minor breach. In the instant case, a court would likely award nominal damages due to the lack of any clear harm to the buyer.
Furthermore, the measure of damages had there been an unjustified refusal to make delivery would be based on the difference between the market price of the good at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price (2-713) or in the alternative, the buyer could "cover" by buying the item at another retailer and sue for the difference between the contract price and the purchase price of the replacement (2-712). Cover doesn't even require that the price be the "next best price" - only that it is made in good faith and without unreasonable delay. This may very well exceed the market price if the buyer wants the item immediately and is willing to pay a higher price for the convenience of a local retailer.
Actually, this reminds me more of the people who stand at the register and argue with the manager, "But it was on the 99-cent rack, so you *have* to sell it to me for 99 cents!"
Fortunately, those people don't know about Slashdot yet...
It's still a bad summary. The awful, awful summary posits that Amazon did not notify their customers because it violated their policy to cancel the order. Clearly it does not violate their policy to cancel the order--the only policy violation was, in fact, failing to notify the customer's about it. The submitter is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
In other words, the submitter thinks that Amazon violated its own policy, and tried to cover it up by silently deleting the orders. Based on that policy snippet, that does not seem to be the case.
The problem is that although some people here probably know what they're talking about, it's hard to judge which ones they are without spending more time than it's worth sorting them out from the undeclared IANALs. (Skip to the final paragraph for the main point minus the waffle).
You have to ask yourself- what level of knowledge is this person arguing from? Do they even understand the basics of what they're discussing? If so, do they understand the finer points and exceptions that apply to "corner cases" such as this one? Unless you already know the law pretty well (I don't), it's often impossible to judge- and whilst I'm no expert and don't pretend to be one, I don't intend to be a blind man being led by another overconfident but equally blind man.
In all honesty, *any* Slashdot discussion about the finer points of law will quickly become an intellectual wankfest that mixes up basic misunderstanding, myths, attempts to reason out what the law actually is (*1) and assumptions that the way the law *should* be is the way that it actually is. (*2)
The law does have intellectual consistency, but not in the way that Slashdot-style pseudo-logic can be applied to it. Otherwise, engineers would make great lawyers and vice versa.
(*1) No, you can't always logically deduce what the law actually is through logic- particularly not corner cases. The law is what the law is, even when it doesn't always make sense. It's an example of the conceit that you can apply geek/engineer-style logic to any field. In a way, this is the same point as *2 below.
(*2) Yes, the law sometimes sucks and is stupid- and it's perfectly valid to discuss its flaws and how it should behave. But the fact remains- you *can't* assume that the way it *should* be, or even the way that "common sense" (or some convoluted pseudo-intellectual Slashdot argument) says it should be is the way that it actually is.
To cut the above short, threads like this are basically useless for shedding light rather than heat, because the majority of contributors are IANALs who'll try to (incorrectly) apply pseudo-logical reason to cover their lack of legal expertise.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
In general terms, you're right. See Restatement of Contracts 2d, Section 153.
Section 153. When Mistake of One Party Makes a Contract Voidable.
Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material affect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake under the rule stated in Section 154, and
(a) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, or
(b) the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.
***[Section 154 assigns the risk to the mistaken party under limited circumstances: if the agreement so says,; if he is aware that his "limited knowledge" may cause such a mistake; or if a court determines that such assignment is reasonable. None likely applies to Amazon, here.]***
See also, Illustration 1 to Section 153:
In response to B's invitation for bids on the construction of a building according to stated specifications, A submits an offer to do the work for $150,000. A believes that this is the total of a column of figures, but he had made an error by inadvertently omitting a $50,000 item, and in fact the total is $200,000. B, having no reason to know of A's mistake [emphasis added] accepts A's bid. If A performs for $150,000, he will sustain a loss of $20,000 instead of making an expected profit of $30,000. If the court determines that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, it is voidable by A.
And in this case, the consumer did have reason to know of A's mistake. (A 75-disc import for $30? Puh-lease...) I'm not a lawyer, so interpret for yourself: But I don't think it takes more than a teaspoon of common sense to recognize that no judge is going to find in favor of some slippery shmuck who tried to take advantage of an obvious mislabel to the tune of $470.
1) Amazon offered a product for sale at a price less then 1/10th of the "real" price. 2) Amazon took orders from customers. These orders constituted an offer to purchase at the stated price, IMO. 3) Amazon did not fulfill, or ship the products. 4) Amazon did not communicate anything to the customers. 5) Amazon canceled the orders.
You are talking about behaviors that are clearly covered under Bait and Switch laws. My thinking does not apply to them, nor did I claim it to be so. I do not believe that Amazon pulled a Bait and Switch game here.
Amazon does not advertise their products. Unless this specific item appears in banner pages on other websites, it is not an advertisement. It is merely an advanced interactive product listing. I wholeheartedly believe that companies need to exercise reasonable care in advertising and be held accountable for those advertisements. I just don't think that a product listing page on a website constitutes advertisement in the traditional sense. What is reasonable care? No system can be perfect, and unless you can demonstrate that this is a pervasive problem within Amazon's systems I would propose they are taking "reasonable care" in the design, implementation, and review of their information systems. I am a database designer, so I can tell you that no system is perfect, but I certainly work very hard to reduce or outright eliminate errors like this.
I actually take offense to that, since it seems to be directed towards me. I am very pro-consumer, and I am as certainly fed up with the amount of bull in this country. Stepping back from the situation and evaluating it logically, rationally, and impartially, is not the actions of an apologist.
I am stating that there is a distinction between this specific act and the general behavior of bait and switch companies. You can read my other post where I cite Bait and Switch guidelines from the FCC and use them on the aforementioned actions of Amazon. I also stated certain moral implications of the behaviors being performed FTA, and the overall tone of the article being a poor PR job on Amazon. If we are going to demonize Amazon for something, let's pick a better example with clearer evidence.
Victims? Who? Where?
If any of those customers honestly thought a boxed CD set of Jazz with what looks like to be 30-40 cds was really 30$, then they were inconvenienced and had their time wasted. They are certainly not victims for that alone. Amazon did not offer them more products, different terms, or prolong any more pain. They simply canceled the transactions. They way they did left MUCH to be desired. I DO NOT blame these people.
For those customers that knew the product was being offered at the incorrect price and ordered it anyways, I stated that they are being immoral doing so. I do blame them. I will continue to blame them. They tried taking advantage of Amazon, and do not deserve a "pass" sim
Then they should take as a lesson and improve their site.
Product information -including price- is most likely manually entered into their database. Why do you think Amazon should swallow thousands of dollars worth of losses over a typo?
No, THEY MADE A MISTAKE. Nothing wrong about it, and the converse is equally true: if you buy a cd set from Amazon priced at $400 when another site has it priced at $30, it's your own damn fault for not checking the price.
Wow, is the idea of screwing the corporations so tempting to you that any shred of morals is lost? I don't think you would be saying what you are saying if any of this involved your money now would you?
So basically you're saying people should not be held responsible for their mistakes.Hey, according to you, I can price anything the way I want, and if I decide the price is too low today, cancel the order! Now that's morality, at least on planet Firias Zirie.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
i don't recall mentioning contract. were i in contract law, i might give a rip about the legal definition of harm. however, in my news stories, i prefer people to save their hyperbole for stories where real harm is occurring, not where they got stymied in their attempt to screw a corporation. so, i stand by my statement that no real harm occurred, and that this is not really news. there are enough real examples of corporations causing financial damage and ruin that we need not resort to such trivialities we see highlighted here.
It's an honest mistake and I think people would be clearly unreasonable if they didn't like Amazon coming clean and declared this a misprice. But if it's true that Amazon just erased all traces of their order without explanation or notice, then I would have a problem with that.
Everyone in that thread knew they were taking advantage of a mistake. There's one guy in that thread who ordered every item in the sale -- over a thousand dollars worth of DVDs -- paired in such a way that it was all free. I don't think he even had to pay shipping. Yes, Amazon screwed up by not canceling the orders when they corrected the glitch, but apart from the first person to notice the problem, everyone on that thread knew they were taking advantage of a programming error. As such, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
But in those 4.99 DVD bins at Wal-Mart you never know what your going to find, since there's no list on the side w/what should and shouldn't be in there. so... yeah, I'd argue if it wasn't obviously the wrong thing or the wrong price.
The example in this article would be like finding, for example, all three seasons of Battlestar Galactica in the $4.99 DVD bin at Walmart. You *know* it doesn't belong there, and you'd have to be a fool or a thief to insist that it did.
I hate to side with a corporation, but in this matter I do have to agree with Amazon:
This box set has been around since 2003. It's not something that a casual music listener purchases. It's something that will attract musicologists, historians, and hard core jazz fans.
The fact that Amazon managed to lay their hands on three copies of this set to sell is amazing! I searched for it a few years ago, and only found one or two new copies of it. The used copies that were on the market were going for $600 or more.
To be honest, I am totally baffled by what the problem is here? Amazon has a cancellation policy if an item is priced incorrectly. At least one person has posted a notice they received of the cancellation.
Is it wrong for a company to not get raped for $1500? Is it wrong for them to not honor a bad faith sale? Is it wrong for them to correct an error in their system? (How many errors have they corrected in customer's favor?)
Back to my previous perusal of this set: I wanted this set, but I knew that I couldn't afford to spend $500 on any CD collection, despite the fact that it is an EXCELLENT set. My solution was to scrounge hard and find the four 3-disc box sets. They provided an excellent overview of the material in the larger set, and satisfied my hunger for the bigger set. Alas, my quick search of Froogle didn't turn up many copies of them (however, if memory recalls, they were difficult to find the first time around - I think I had to search by the individual box titles).
Honestly, the author of this piece just needs to suck it up. If he really wants the set (and, even at $500 it is still an EXCELLENT bargain - only $6.67 per disc!) then buy it at the proper price. If he really doesn't want to pay the $500, then try to find the other sets, or look elsewhere.
--- Faster moments spread tales of change within the sound.