Slashdot Mirror
In AU, Dodgy Dell Deal Faces Consumer Backlash
Ben Seberry writes "It appears Dell has been caught red-faced by yet another pricing mistake on their Australian website. Many customers thought they had spotted a fantastic deal when they came across a 55%-off offer. Dell later denied that this was a valid special and telephoned customers to offer them a choice of the standard price, or a cancelled order. Dell's senior manager of corporate communication came out and apologized for the mistake, promising processes would be reviewed to prevent it from happening again. In the days after the original 'incorrectly priced' offer was fixed, Dell made a different error leading to an even cheaper price being advertised. This time, on many user forums and blogs, users are debating Australian contract law as it applies to this matter — it is not as clear-cut as many originally believed."
I don't know about US economic laws but in Switzerland, if something is obviously too good to be true and there has been a mistake, the company can actually declare any contracts made invalid.
Or if it's a real life product in a real life windows with a hilariously low price, the sales people are not obligated to make the sale at that price.
So if it's too good to be true you'll have to expect it to actually BE too good to be true.
The tough question just is: Is 55% off unrealistic?
I live in Melbourne, Australia. A well known consumer test magazine here, Choice, said about 20 years ago that an advertised or store-posted price was only "an invitation to enter into a contract of sale" and was not binding on the seller. That said, it is fairly common for most larger shops to give you the item at the advertised price when it is incorrect (i.e low). I once got six pieces of wood from a hardware shop that were marked at $4 each instead of $11 each. They pointed this out to me at the checkout and after checking that the rest of their stock was also marked at this price (not just mine ;-) ) gave it to me at this low price anyway.
I think whether or not this is wrong depends entirely on whether or not money as changed hands at the time the error is noticed.
For instance, we would not consider a car dealership to be contractually bound to sell cars for $3000 a piece if a typo caused a zero to be left off the price in an advertisement. An advertisement or coupon simply does not constitute a contract.
In that same vein, I would argue that making an internet purchase is not a contract as well, or rather, at least not initially. Giving a company your credit information and clicking "Purchase" is not the same as handing another person cash and shaking hands, as that credit information must first be authorized and processed before money is actually transferred. Until that is done, the transaction (and hence, contract) has not been completed, and you the consumer aren't entitled to anything. Consequently, if an error is found at this stage, I see nothing wrong with a company cancelling the order in question.
If money is transferred, that is a whole different ball of wax. The deal is then done, and a business should be held to whatever price they stated. At that point they have taken your money, depriving you the use of it for anything else, and it is not acceptable for them to cancel the order simply because of their incompetence, anymore than they can call you up a month later and demand more money for an item you already purchased.
This has happened here in Chile twice during 2008. In both cases Dell backed out of all sales, to great outrage. The second time it happened, I thought it was rather fishy; now that I see the same thing going on in Australia, it is starting to look like a corporate "marketing" policy.