Website Checkout Glitches: Two Very Different Corporate Responses

Freshly Exhumed writes "On the morning of December 26th, 2013, an error on the website of Delta Air Lines' produced impossibly low fare discounts of as much as 90% for about 2 hours before the problem was corrected. Delta, to their PR benefit, have swallowed the losses, and the lucky customers have shared their delight via social media. Unfortunately for many buyers of goods from The Brick furniture retailer, no such consumer warmth is forthcoming. The Brick's website checkout had awarded them an additional 50% off, over and above all other costs, but the official corporate response has been to demand the money be returned. Affected customers are now lashing The Brick with social media opprobrium and drawing direct comparisons with Delta's response. So, given that these are not small, mom-and-pop companies, have we reached a point at which online retailers are expected to just swallow such costs for PR purposes, as part of doing web business?"

Comments

Same rules apply

[sbassett]

If a brick and mortar left a sign up in their windows advertising X percent off consumers would expect it. Just because they are online doesn't give them a pass for sloppy practices.

Re:Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the laws in some states demand that brick and mortar stores to honor the prices that they advertive. This includes prices that are in error! Why should online stores be treated any different?

Re:Same rules apply

[Maritz]

They wouldn't chaise you for longue.

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

If a brick and mortar left a sign up in their windows advertising X percent off consumers would expect it.

Yes.... but I belive that's more about HONORING What you advertise. If the printed price they stuck on the goods says "$300" on a $3000 on a brand new Macbook pro; they better honor it.

On the other hand... if the price said $3000, BUT the cash register rings up $300, they need not honor the $300 price: if the clerk catches the error, before finalizing the transaction. If the clerk doesn't catch the error --- tells the customer this is what their price is: then the deal is final after the customer pays.

Similarly IF THE WEBSITE advertises $1000, but when you got to checkout, your total shows $100. The customer should expect the store won't honor the $100 price; if their online shopping cart disagrees with the advertised price.

The store should call the customer and inform them of the error --- give them the option to pay the expected price, or cancel the transaction.

If the online store goes ahead with the sale, then they have accepted the error. Once they ship the goods, it is now too late for them to back out of the deal, and escape without causing the customer undue harm.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

In your haste to comment early, it seems you didn't read the article. They offered items at a discount - but when customers checked out, they were given a 50% discount beyond what had been advertised/offered. They never advertised that additional 50%, never offered it, never did anything which would make a customer expect it. It was an error, and came as a surprise to both the seller and buyer.

This differs from the Delta case, where the low prices were offered before the buyer accepted the offer and went through checkout.

Your comparison fails, because they were (and still are) willing to honor the advertised prices. But, there are people who were charged less than they expected who are complaining that it's somehow unfair for the business to correct this obvious error. Those same people would no doubt be screaming for relief if they didn't get the offered discount when they got to the checkout - "fair" apparently only works in one direction.

Re:Same rules apply

[just fiddling around]

If the register malfunctions and the retailer stops the transaction, it's OK. If the register malfunctions and the retailer still makes the sale, that's the retailer's problem.

A sale is a contract which binds BOTH parties. And EULA's are subject to the law of the land, which says: if a contract is non-negociable, it has to be interpreted has widely as possible in favor of the party who did not draft it.

Re:Same rules apply

[znanue]

Except that the exposure of this error is much more contained in a brick and mortar. Websites can scale up rapidly before the error is noticed. If a store suddenly started selling the same thing at a tremendous discount and the store exploded to several hundred times its normal conversion or volume, probably the most dense cashier would notice that something was off quite quickly. Stores also often have a floor manager who would certainly notice this change in volume and probably react by figuring our there was a deal too good to be true.

Also, it is unclear whether Brick's business model took a greater hit, has less of a safety margin, or a greater method for making markups. Delta still may end up charging a fair bit and come close to recouping its costs on "value-added" things like luggage costs. Moreover, is the Brick's business model as driven by repeat business and reputation? We've seen plenty of businesses get negative attention and ultimately drive more traffic as a result. Some people love a good backlash. The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.

Finally, there is the moral and legal justification. Why should a business be held to such a mistake? IANAL, but I remember a contract being considered invalid if there was insufficient consideration for one party. This seems appropriate, at least in spirit. The business made a flagrant, possibly very easy mistake, and I'm going to guess most customers reasonably assumed that it was a mistake and took advantage, anyway. If the argument is that the business should have installed safeguards against such eventualities, like algorithms to detect egregious discounts from the subtotal, then they are already well motivated by the PR issues that can result, as well as the loss in time it takes to recover or correct the problem for each second the discount is erroneously available.

I'm going to guess if these businesses were sole proprietors in a neighborhood climate that the people would have been less likely to take advantage, more likely to tell the proprietor, and less likely to grouse if asked to return the product or pay the difference. Hundreds of people make their livelihoods in these respective businesses and millions are affected by the cost offsets the businesses would have to do to recover from the errors. There is more to this story than the solitary consumer's point of view.

Re:Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

More so, the company has already completed the transaction. They offered a certain price for the goods, they accepted the money, and they handed over the goods. They have no recourse now to demand more money.

Re:Same rules apply

[beelsebob]

No, they're not. The transaction is complete. They offered a certain price for the goods, they accepted the cash, and they gave you the goods. They have no expectation of getting the money out of you now.

Reposting what I posted above, because I failed to log in.

Re:Same rules apply

[youngatheart]

My daughter convinced me to take her to Kohl's for some basic shopping. I checked in on 4square and was surprised to find that it got me a discount. Then at the register, when they rang me up, it was less than expected even with the discount. I was happily surprised to discover after paying, that the receipt showed another discount which I commented on to the cashier. I was happy to hear that they often give those kinds of discounts.

The point is that when you get extra discounts, you don't assume they're made in error, you assume that you are being given a treat, probably something they are advertising and you just didn't see, by the seller.

Re:Same rules apply

[mwvdlee]

These were not advertised prices, but only appeared on checkout (after clicking on the "buy" button with the higher prices listed).
It's like the cash register being off by a factor of 10. In this case it was in favor of the customer. What if it was if favor of the shop?

Regardless; the way they're "paying" for customer's troubles by giving them 10% off a future purchase is just laughably pathetic.
If they said "Hey, we gave you 50% extra bue to an error, would you please return the 40% (keep the 10% as expenses) or return the items for a refund (will pay back 10% extra for your trouble)", it would have been very different. Instead they say "Hey, pay us more. As a thank you, we'll let you buy stuff from us again".

Re:Same rules apply

[_Shad0w_]

Depends where you are. In the UK at least, as far as I know, they aren't required to honour a mistake if a reasonable person wouldn't have believed it was correct.

Re:Same rules apply

[_Shad0w_]

Unjust enrichment law might apply, but IANAL so I don't know.

Re:Same rules apply

[Immerman]

Two things:

The online store has a *huge* advantage over brick-and-mortar stores in terms of cost savings and transaction volume. If they don't want to invest some of those savings into proofreaders and early-warning systems to defend against such problems then that's *their* choice. They chose increased profit over risk protection, and that's nobody's fault but their own.

The purchase at price X is a non-neogtiable contract, and thus by law must be interpreted as generously as possible in favor of the party who didn't draft it (i.e the customer). If the problem is discovered before the transaction is complete (in this case before the thing ships) then they are free to cancel the order or offer people the option of re-purchasing at the intended price. Once the transaction is complete all bets are off, though an honorable customer would certainly be understanding of the error, just as an honorable company would correct the error if you pointed out that they overcharged you and you didn't notice at the time.

In this case though it sounds like the error was caught before the transaction was complete - they took customers money, but realized the error before shipping the items, so it seems to me it's purely a PR decision. Is it better to swallow the cash loss from completing the transaction, or the PR loss from failing to do so. Thy made their choice, and now they have to live with it.

Of course you've got to be a special kind of spoiled to throw a tantrum because the cashier say "Hey wait a minute, this rang up wrong. Do you want to pay the sticker price, or should I give you your money back?

Re:Same rules apply

[gl4ss]

furthermore, it's furniture.

50% off is pretty regular thing to happen, so they can't really argue that it should have been obvious that it's a coding failure.

Re:Same rules apply

[mark-t]

It's my understanding that he *only* obligation that a retailer might ever have to a customer to honor a currently advertised price is when that advertisement was at least initiially and deliberately placed there by the retailer. Typographical, mathematical, and other computer errors on the price being advertised do not count in this respect. So, if the retailer intended to advertise something on sale for $10, and a misplaced decimal caused it to be advertised for $1, then while the retailer can reasonably be accused of not paying enough attention to what they are advertising, they aren't obligated to sell it for $1, but they can be obligated to sell it for $10 even outside of the sale period if they had simply forgotten to remove the notice of the discount because the advertisement was something that they initially deliberately put there.

Re:Same rules apply

[garyoa1]

The brick isn't an online store. It's a store that has a web site. It's Canadian and huge. Kinda like kmart or sears. They're everywhere in Canada.

Re:Same rules apply

[Ichijo]

Online retailers often offer hidden, unadvertised prices that you won't see before you start the checkout process. But you will always see the final price before the transaction is completed--before your credit card is charged.

In this case, was the additional 50% discount shown before or after both parties agreed to the terms of the sale? TFA is silent on this point.

Re:Same rules apply

[Immerman]

If the transaction were complete before the error were noticed I'd be inclined to agree. But it wasn't. This is more like the cashier rang up the sale, and then noticed while loading the cart (waiting to ship) that the sticker price didn't match what the register had rung up, and gave you the choice of either paying the sticker price or not buying the item. It takes a special kind of spoiled brat to throw a tantrum in such a situation.

If they were trying to claw back items that had already shipped that would be different, especially if they had already been received, I might have already given it away or something. But that doesn't seem to be what happened here.

And if the error were in the shop's favor, why would you complete the transaction? You saw the receipt and confirmed that everything was correct before they put your order into the processing queue. And if the error were discovered later by some random person you can be pretty sure they'd correct the error for you as well, doing otherwise would leave them open to charges of... fraud is it? Whatever it is when you advertise one price and charge something else.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

"Online retailers often offer hidden, unadvertised prices that you won't see before you start the checkout process. "

But that's not the case here, so what's your point? In any case, the only times I've seen that is when they are apparently not allowed to advertise a price below a certain amount - and they make it clear that adding the item is the only way to view the price ("click here to add to cart and see our super low price - you will be able to cancel if you wish").

What rationale is there for a seller to simply take more off a price which a buyer has already indicated a willingness to pay?

Re:Same rules apply

[Xeno man]

Many discounts are not properly advertised such as manufacture discounts, 2 for 1 sales or x% off after spending $y. Many price reductions are applied at the register so items will still have a $50 sticker on them when on sale for $40 so when scanned they show up for less. It is not uncommon for people to be surprised that items cost come to less than they expect when they find out something is on sale they were unaware of.

Re:Same rules apply

[Ichijo]

What rationale is there for a seller to simply take more off a price which a buyer has already indicated a willingness to pay?

I don't know, but they do it anyway. The only hint are the words "Product Details at Checkout" which isn't very meaningful, and the words "Your Final Price" are missing but chances are you won't realize they are missing.

Re:Same rules apply

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes.... but I belive that's more about HONORING What you advertise."

I agree. In some cases the law says you have to honor what you advertise. But even if it doesn't, it is obvious to see that one response pisses people off and loses customers, while the other can probably just be written off as an advertising expense. (I.e., all the "free" propaganda you end up getting on Twitter and Fecebook and the like.)

Re:Same rules apply

[itsdapead]

In fact, the laws in some states demand that brick and mortar stores to honor the prices that they advertive. This includes prices that are in error! Why should online stores be treated any different?

because (even with such a law) there are practical limitations on how may $99 products can walk out the door of a bricks & mortar store for $0.99 before the error can be caught and corrected.

For an an online store, the error can go viral on social networking and by the time a human being spots the situation, there can be so many orders that they'd need to build a couple of new factories to fulfil them.

Now, if the retailer takes your $0.99 and delivers the product that's one thing (analogous to the shop taking your money and letting you walk out the door) - but when these stories crop up it is usually people whining because the retailer just refuses to honour the order (in this case, TFA is somewhat vague on whether money has been taken or products delivered).

Try and compel stores to honour those orders and I guarantee that the only winners will be the lawyers.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

Whoosh. The website lists those when you search for "specials," and has "Product Details at Checkout" right under the listed prices. I didn't check every one, but it looks like there are "Special Prices" shown directly in red, and "add to cart to see the real price" shown in black and tagged with "Product Details at Checkout".

As I already said, this appears to be to avoid problems with manufacturer requirements for minimum advertised pricing. The special pricing is no doubt made available when going through the normal search process (e.g. not just searching for specials), to avoid upsetting people who may later learn of the special offer.

Re:Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

For an an online store, the error can go viral on social networking and by the time a human being spots the situation, there can be so many orders that they'd need to build a couple of new factories to fulfil them.

1) Then they should double-check all prices before they go live.

2) Then they should only accept as many orders as they have stock. That at least limits the damage to what they have on-hand. just like brick-n-mortar stores.

Re:Same rules apply

[fredklein]

On the other hand... if the price said $3000, BUT the cash register rings up $300, they need not honor the $300 price: if the clerk catches the error, before finalizing the transaction. If the clerk doesn't catch the error --- tells the customer this is what their price is: then the deal is final after the customer pays.

Similarly IF THE WEBSITE advertises $1000, but when you got to checkout, your total shows $100. The customer should expect the store won't honor the $100 price; if their online shopping cart disagrees with the advertised price.

So, I guess the whole thing comes down to: When is an online order 'complete'? When they say 'thanks for your order', and email you a confirmation? (That's what I'd say.) Or when they actually ship? Or when you get the order delivered?

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

So, I guess the whole thing comes down to: When is an online order 'complete'?

After the buyer has both paid for and taken delivery of the item.

If they discover that the amount has been paid any time before that, the seller can suspend delivery of the goods (cancel before shipping, or delivery intercept)

With no goods in hand by the buyer, the sale is not yet completed.

As soon as the shipping company deposits the goods on the buyer's doorstep however --- the items are now at the buyer's property, and the transaction has concluded; can no longer be cancelled or revised, without the buyer's consent.

Re:Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

They only have to honour it (at least in the UK) when they send a confirmation order to your email as a receipt and take payment.

The contract is made when money passes hands and you get your receipt, until then they can advertise the prices as what they want as much as they want.
Stores on the high street can't falsely advertise anything as it takes money to travel to the store, just to get customers in the store which would cost the consumer in travel costs and time. However, you can argue that those costs are next to zero for online shopping.

Re:Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

TV reports indicated that the orders were completed by the system, but shoppers received a call the next day to tell them that they would have to pay the original amount. So they cancelled all orders after accepting them. Other news source.

Re:Same rules apply

[SuricouRaven]

The only analogy I can see that applies would be if a brick-and-mortar store gave a discount due to a procedural error - perhaps someone mistakenly sending the January sales order in March rather than the annual tax reminder, or a junior employee putting up the wrong sign and casheers assuming they were just out of the loop. That's basically what's happening here: Someone screws up and a sale is put into effect that wasn't supposed to happen.

Re:Same rules apply

[SuricouRaven]

Some of the offers are complicated. A common one here in the UK is 'buy three items, cheapest free.' In an offer like that it'd be impossible to determine what the discount is until the order is ready to finalise.

Re:Same rules apply

[ganjadude]

oh wait, I know this be cause ... internetz! It works for getting patents on old stuff right?

Re:Same rules apply

[Runaway1956]

I don't believe so.

Everything on the website is under the vendor's control. The listing, the price in the listing, the checkout, everything. The ONLY part of the process under the customer's control, is the decision to enter financial information. Just like any brick and mortar store, once the transaction is concluded, and the customer has a receipt in hand, the vendor is obligated to deliver the goods.

We've just had Black Friday, where damn near everything in the world was advertised at 50% to 80% off. With their bogus sales running like that, how is the customer to know that the store didn't mark the item up 600% so that he could then mark it down 80% and STILL make a huge profit? That is standard procedure today, after all.

And, if there WERE a problem with the checkout, then the vendor most certainly should have caught it before he shipped the items. He is still obligated to deliver them, at the price he charged - but if he caught his mistake before he shipped, he could at least negotiate with the customer. "Look, Pal, I made a serious mistake, and I sold this item so far below cost that my boss is going to fire me. Can we meet in the middle? No? How 'bout you pay for the shipping, and you'll still be way ahead of the ballgame! Alright - if that sounds good to you, I'll just charge another ten bucks to your card, and ship it out today!"

The vendor cannot arbitrarily cancel a sale, or arbitrarily add a charge to the sale. The customer has his receipt, the property is his. All you can do is beg him to meet you in the middle. And, doing that may well cost you a return customer.

It's best if the vendor just swallows the loss.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

That you find it impossible add up the three most expensive items out of four doesn't say much for UK schools.

Re:Same rules apply

[fredklein]

So, I guess the whole thing comes down to: When is an online order 'complete'?

After the buyer has both paid for and taken delivery of the item.

You must own a business.

So, what you're saying is, the business can take my money, 'ship' the product (Ground, of course), then, on the last day before it's delivered, cancel the shipping and have it returned to them, all that time keeping my money in their bank accounts, earning them interest, and only then refund me? Bull.

Re: Same rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this Ron Johnson?

Re:Same rules apply

[dwywit]

Actually, the barcode scanning code of conduct (I think that's what it's called) at grocery stores here in Oz states that if there's any discrepancy between sticker price on the shelf, and what the register rings up, you get the item free. That's OK for a bag of potatoes, but a $3K computer would be different.

The advertisement is an offer to trade. If the consumer accepts the offer, and the seller accepts the money and delivers the goods, that's the end of the deal. Tough titty for the seller if they've allowed an error all the way through to the completion of the sale - they have the option to back out any time up until accepting the money.

Re:Same rules apply

[mevets]

Some book I was reading has a story about a pair of suit salemen in the 1930s. When a customer wanted the price of the suit, one would yell the question to the other. The other replied $42, loudly and had to repeat it. The one would then tell the customer âoemy brother says its $20â. The customer would quickly buy the suit, taking advantage his hearing loss.

The Brick use such a variety of dubious sales and payment practices, if I found myself with an unexpected discount, I would be afraid I signed up for some weird loan.

Half of the Brickâ(TM)s customers have no idea what the real price they are paying is.

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

So, what you're saying is, the business can take my money, 'ship' the product (Ground, of course), then, on the last day before it's delivered, cancel the shipping and have it returned to them, all that time keeping my money in their bank accounts, earning them interest, and only then refund me?

Probably not. If you paid by credit card, and they void/reverse the transaction --- the business won't be earning any interest. There won't be any interest to earn -- and if there was any: it will be banks that are earning the transaction float, not retailers.

The only way they would be earning interest would be with cleared funds -- which doesn't happen in 5 days, unless you paid by check or wire. Which just doesn't happen with online e-commerce sales.

Re:Same rules apply

[lucm]

Return customers are overrated. Most people shop for low prices and Brick is not in a niche market so they have little to gain from good PR. Actually this incident may scare away the kind of people they don't need as customers, and whatever money they get back will come from people who don't hold this mistake against Brick and will come shop again if they happen to need something and the price is right.

Good PR is good, but depending on the amount wasted on that mistake it may be more profitable to ask for money back and mitigate the loss.

Re:Same rules apply

[mrchaotica]

Don't forget that you agreed to the EULA contract upon checkout which protects the seller.

No you didn't: a sale is a sale is a sale. That's all, period.

You can take your bullshit "EULA" nonsense and fuck right off with it!

Re:Same rules apply

[Bearhouse]

Similar in France, UK...without the 10%, hence the brief popularity in some supermarkets for 'smart' price tags that presumably were updated at same time as episode till. Seem to gave disappered tho...maybe got stolen too much

Re:Same rules apply

[thegarbz]

Similarly IF THE WEBSITE advertises $1000, but when you got to checkout, your total shows $100.
The customer should expect the store won't honor the $100 price; if their online shopping cart disagrees with the advertised price.

The store should call the customer and inform them of the error --- give them the option to pay the expected price, or cancel the transaction.

If the online store goes ahead with the sale, then they have accepted the error. Once they ship the goods, it is now too late for them to back out of the deal, and escape without causing the customer undue harm.

False. They need not ship the goods for them to be too late to back out of the deal. This is basic contract law. A contract was written up (offer), it was accepted (check out), and at least one way consideration was made (payment). What you have now is a fully legally binding contract that says one person exchanged x dollars for y goods. Failing to deliver on the y goods is grounds for legal challenge.

Now if the error was caught before the credit card actually got billed, i.e. the checkout process then went through a sanity check where someone caught the error then no consideration has been paid and thus we don't have a legally binding contract and either party can back out. Offer and acceptance isn't normally enough to form a contract which is why when I sign a contract to purchase a house I must put down a few hundred $ purely to satisfy the legal requirements of a binding contract, money I get back if any part of the contract falls through and I don't buy the house.

*Note: My knowledge of contract law is based on the laws of a few countries, but maybe not yours.

Re:Same rules apply

[thegarbz]

The Australian National Retailer's Association Code of Practice For Computerised Checkout Systems In Supermarkets is what you're quoting.

There's no legal requirement for the low price to be honoured as this is a voluntary code of conduct.

You are also very right about a sale. A sale is a basic contract made up of offer (Macbooks for $300), acceptance (I will buy your Macbooks), and consideration (Here have some dollars to make our contract final). After ANY money has changed hands (it does not need to be the full amount) both parties are bound to complete the transaction.

Re:Same rules apply

[thegarbz]

But, there are people who were charged less than they expected who are complaining that it's somehow unfair for the business to correct this obvious error. Those same people would no doubt be screaming for relief if they didn't get the offered discount when they got to the checkout - "fair" apparently only works in one direction.

No you see the problem is people are complaining its unfair that a company isn't honouring a binding contract. See legally I think the consumer is right here even in your country where there are bugger all consumer protection laws. Basic contract laws stipulates that you can't come in afterwards and demand more money.

Not honouring the advertised pricing is one thing, but protection only covers you to the point where money changes hands. If it didn't there's be nothing stopping you from employing bait and switch tactics which are illegal.

Re:Same rules apply

[dwywit]

Ah, yes. Thanks. I knocked back the "free item" once - I pointed out that the "buy one, get one free" offer on coffee rang up as two separate items, and 10 seconds later after verifying the shelf label and cash register docket, the cashier's supervisor said "Right, that's both of them free, then", I said not to bother, just give me the original 2-for-1 deal, but she insisted.

Re:Same rules apply

[thetoadwarrior]

Who cares how many people could see it? There is a set amount of stock and besides, get good well paid programmers and proof read your input rather than expecting special treatment.

Re: Same rules apply

[MadAhab]

If repeat business is overrated (and this is a bold, unsupported assertion), then I'm the customer Brick would want, because I haven't shopped them before. And I won't, because I have a reasonable expectation I won't get the price I agree to.

There's bad PR, and there's bad rep.

Re:Same rules apply

[Golddess]

Similarly IF THE WEBSITE advertises $1000, but when you got to checkout, your total shows $100. The customer should expect the store won't honor the $100 price; if their online shopping cart disagrees with the advertised price.

Could you please explain why the customer should expect the store to not honor the $100 price? Because I would probably look at it and think "huh, I guess it was one of those 'add to cart to see the real price" items."

Re:Same rules apply

[AmiMoJo]

You can get some insane but legitimate deals this way. For example home insurance with a discount code, new customer bonus, no claims bonus, cash back website and cash back credit card was about 95% discounted one year (£20). Occasionally Tesco pay you to take stuff away with their point card system. It happens.

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

False. They need not ship the goods for them to be too late to back out of the deal.

It's not too late. If you don't have goods; then they can supply goods, OR they can return the money or void the CC charge. Either action settles the transaction. The retailer is under no obligation to supply the goods at a price they did not offer and agree to; if there is an error in their transaction processing system, they can back out the transaction, or contact you, and insist you agree to pay the expected amount.

Now if the error was caught before the credit card actually got billed

You apparently don't understand how credit card processing works. When the retailer "charges your CC"; payment has not been delivered -- an authorization of future payment has been secured.

The retailer doesn't receive money immediately when your credit card is "charged" ('authorized for payment') -- the charge action, is a pre-authorization to receive a certain amount of money.

The retailer doesn't receive any money until settlement; usually around 30 days after the CC charge, before settled funds can be deposited in the retailer's accounts.

Any time before settlement, the retailer can void the transaction, and there is no settlement (I.E. You never paid anything; the retailer never got any money)

Re:Same rules apply

[Dahamma]

Yes, that's absolutely true - as long as is can be proven that it was due to a mistake and not false advertising. Sorry, but it's not bull, it's established with precedent...

Re: Same rules apply

[lucm]

I have a reasonable expectation I won't get the price I agree to.

That's preposterous. Do you typically shop online with the intent of paying half of the posted price because of a buggy shopping cart? If you see a TV on sale at $500 and you add that TV to your shopping cart, you should "expect" to pay $500, not $250.

That's exactly what happened in this situation. Brick did not post a price then came back later to cancel orders after figuring out that it was not cost-effective for them to sell at that price (something Best Buy did a few times in the past). There was a bug in the checkout process, that's a whole different story.

You must be one of those people who ask for a free apple pie at McDonalds when you get a regular Coke instead of the Diet Coke you asked for. Guess what: being a customer does not put you on a pedestal, and if you think that a company that does not agree to let people get away with an invoicing error deserves a "bad rep" you are correct that Brick (or any other company) does not need you as a customer.

You know what con artists say about their marks: if someone is too stupid to hold on to their money it's ok to take it from them. Basically when someone knowingly pays 50% of the posted price during an online transaction and expects that there will be no follow-up from the seller they are applying the same logic, and to add insult to the injury they dare come out publicly and throw a fit because the other party is not bending over to let them enjoy the spoils of victory.

The issue here is not that Brick needs PR lessons, it's that people need to learn that abusing a broken system is wrong. Until then it will remain necessary to bolt park benches to the ground and to put chains on the pens at the DMV. Thank you for making the world such a nice place.

Re: Same rules apply

[Cyberax]

If you see a TV on sale at $500 and you add that TV to your shopping cart, you should "expect" to pay $500, not $250.

Nope. There is no such expectation - the advertised price can be different from the actual sale price for a lot of reasons: sales taxes, special discounts, etc. For example, 20 minutes ago I bought an Audible audiobook for 10% of its normal price because I have its Kindle counterpart.

I have a story - 10 years ago we were supporting a website for a small online outlet. One smart-ass user tried to game the checkout by pasting 16384 spaces into the "Coupon code" field that caused the discount multiplier algorithm to malfunction and return zero. So the total checkout price for a large purchase became zero.

We canceled this order and threatened the "buyer" with a lawsuit after talking with our lawyer. It turns out that there were two significant factors:

1) Since the total price was zero, it couldn't be classified as a sale. So no consumer protection laws kick in. However, even if the buyer had paid $0.01 then it would be a different story.
2) The fact that the buyer entered a very long sequence of spaces can be classified as an attempt at wire fraud.

As I understand, none of this applies in this case. The Brick should shut up and pay up.

Re:Same rules apply

[bloodhawk]

So, I guess the whole thing comes down to: When is an online order 'complete'?

After the buyer has both paid for and taken delivery of the item.

You must own a business.

So, what you're saying is, the business can take my money, 'ship' the product (Ground, of course), then, on the last day before it's delivered, cancel the shipping and have it returned to them, all that time keeping my money in their bank accounts, earning them interest, and only then refund me? Bull.

Actually yes they can. As long as the purpose of cancelling the transaction wasn't simply to deprive you of interest on the money as then it would be fraud plain and simple. Until the transaction is complete on both ends then it can be cancelled.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

What are you babbling about? You obviously have no idea what the facts are, nor about how contracts are formed..

Re:Same rules apply

[Whibla]

That you have found it impossible to understand that "buy three items, cheapest free" doesn't involve buying four items doesn't say much for your reading comprehension. That you further seem to fail to recognise that the discount gained doesn't involve adding any numbers up at all speaks volumes about your critical thinking or logical reasoning skills.

Then again, maybe, like me, you've just engaged in a knee-jerk reaction to demonstrate how smart you are to yourself by putting someone else down. Welcome to the internet.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

In fact, the laws in some states demand that brick and mortar stores to honor the prices that they advertive. This includes prices that are in error!

In other places what matters, in law, is when the customer and vendor have agreed on a price and the customer has paid then the transaction is concluded. Since "vending machines" have been around for thousands of years, in one form or other, using one would not make any difference unless there is a specific law to say so. Similarly non cash based forms of money are not new. With most of the relevent laws probably dating from times where banking records could be days/weeks behind. But a customer would still have been considered to have paid even if their cheque/check wasn't banked until the end of the week/month then took days before their bank even saw it.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

Then they should only accept as many orders as they have stock. That at least limits the damage to what they have on-hand. just like brick-n-mortar stores.

In many places a "brick-n-mortar store" would be breaking the law if they took money from customers for goods they couldn't supply. Why should a "web store" be viewed differently?
If anything a machine should be more able to keep track of orders and stock levels than several people...

Re:Same rules apply

[msobkow]

Most of the websites make it very clear in their sales process that placing the order is not a sale, and that the sale isn't legally completed until they verify the order. If a website doesn't do that, then yes, they should be required to honour the price they charged your credit card or bank account.

Being sloppy with your website is bad enough; being sloppy with your legalese is unforgiveable. If you don't have the good sense to have your terms and conditions vetted by a lawyer, you should pay for your stupidity, not the customer.

I'm not at all surprised The Brick refuses to honour the prices they post. Every single time I've thought about purchasing something from them, they started tacking on extra fees and charges during the process, and I ended up telling them to go fuck themselves and walked out the door. They are beyond doubt the greediest scam and con artists in the furniture industry I've ever had the fortune of not dealing with to completion of a deal.

The worst is a scam they were charged with and spanked for by the courts in Canada -- the "no money down" deals where you were expected to pay service and financing fees up front. To their twisted minds, because those weren't the actual charges for the furniture itself, they were free and clear to screw you over before you even took shipment. Thank God the courts stopped that nonsense -- you notice they haven't run a "0 money down" "sale" in Canada for a couple of years now that they've been spanked.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

They only have to honour it (at least in the UK) when they send a confirmation order to your email as a receipt and take payment.

This hasn't stopped cases of online retailers doing things like cancelling orders after the fact. In some cases after money has been transfered by banks. Just because they can do so.

The contract is made when money passes hands and you get your receipt,

A "receipt" dosn't have to be an email. It possibly isn't even necessary at all if you other proof of the seller accepting the money.

until then they can advertise the prices as what they want as much as they want.

The advertised price in the UK has the definition of "an invitation to treat". A starting point for negotiations. The price you pay is that you have negotiated with the seller. Which need not be the advertised price. Even though the "checkout" part of a web store is a machine. The essential steps of "I'd like X of Y"; That'll be £Z, how do you want to pay?"; "Forget it/I'll pay in this way..." are still there.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

If the online store goes ahead with the sale, then they have accepted the error. Once they ship the goods, it is now too late for them to back out of the deal, and escape without causing the customer undue harm.

Depending on the applicable laws accepting the money may have created a binding contract on the store to supply the goods.
The obvious complication is if the applicable law is where the customer is; where the store is (either their registered office or where they actually ship from); where the server used physically is or where the URL implies it is.

Re:Same rules apply

[msauve]

Perhaps things are different in the UK - "Buy 1, get 1 free" is common in the US. That doesn't mean you buy 1 item and get it at zero cost. Similarly, I take "Buy 3, cheapest free" to mean you, well, actually buy 3. I'd think it would be stated as "Buy 3, get 1 free" except the items are apparently not of equal cost. But, I can see where it could be read ambiguously, and one might assume it meant "Buy 3, and one of those 3 is free," even though you're only buying 2.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

The retailer is under no obligation to supply the goods at a price they did not offer and agree to

Except that they may well have offered and agreed to that price.It depends exactly how the applicable laws define this process. The "advertised price" may or not be relevent.

The retailer doesn't receive money immediately when your credit card is "charged" ('authorized for payment') -- the charge action, is a pre-authorization to receive a certain amount of money.
The retailer doesn't receive any money until settlement; usually around 30 days after the CC charge, before settled funds can be deposited in the retailer's accounts.

In the past it could take a long time for cheques to "clear" or even be "banked". Similarly when credit/debit card transactions involved carbon papers. But in many places the law was, and quite possibly still is, that the handing over of such documents indicated the time of payment.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

So, I guess the whole thing comes down to: When is an online order 'complete'? When they say 'thanks for your order', and email you a confirmation? (That's what I'd say.) Or when they actually ship? Or when you get the order delivered?

It's complete when the "law of the land" says it is complete. Which varies. Further complicted by it being very easy for buyer and seller to be in different legal jurisdictions. Even for the "seller" to be in multiple jurisdictions.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

Could you please explain why the customer should expect the store to not honor the $100 price? Because I would probably look at it and think "huh, I guess it was one of those 'add to cart to see the real price" items."

Or it's a "loss leader" where you might expect "sorry out of stock" should you attempt to actually buy one.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

You can get some insane but legitimate deals this way. For example home insurance with a discount code, new customer bonus, no claims bonus, cash back website and cash back credit card was about 95% discounted one year (ã20). Occasionally Tesco pay you to take stuff away with their point card system. It happens.

Which means a potential customer cannot possibly know if a very good discount is a "mistake". Since retailers do have "loss leaders" or old stock they really want to shift.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

And yes, if the price listed prior to clicking the big shiny "Complete Order" button had been higher than expected, that is what the customer should expect to be charged.

If the result is more that the customer wants to pay they can just leave. Unlike with a physical store this dosn't result in a pile of goods left at the checkout. In both cases there is generally the option of removing goods fromthe "basket" and requesting a new price total.

Re:Same rules apply

[mpe]

It's my understanding that he *only* obligation that a retailer might ever have to a customer to honor a currently advertised price is when that advertisement was at least initiially and deliberately placed there by the retailer. Typographical, mathematical, and other computer errors on the price being advertised do not count in this respect.

There are two prices involved. The first is the advertised price. The second is that at the Point Of Sale. Since a web store is both a "catalogue" and "checkout" it is important not to confuse these.
In some jurisdictions the POS price must follow the advertised price. (Or cannot be higher.) In others only the POS price means anything at all. The advertised price simply being a suggested starting point for the customer and seller to negotiate/haggle.

Re:Same rules apply

[Gallomimia]

Not only that, I believe there are laws stating they have to give you the price as long as the sign remains advertised.

Re:Same rules apply

[Hognoxious]

Occasionally Tesco pay you to take stuff away with their point card system.

I vaguely remember seeing that on the news - bananas I think it was.

You bought a fiver's worth of them and you got enough bonus points (or some kind of vouchers) that you could buy 6 quid's worth, which got you enough bonus points to buy 7.20 worth ...

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

But in many places the law was, and quite possibly still is, that the handing over of such documents indicated the time of payment.

Indicated the time/date of payment, sure, not the fact of payment.

Anyways, major retailers provide specific terms consumers have to accept to complete an order. Orders are always subject to cancellation at the retailer's discretion.

EXAMPLE Amazon.com Conditions of Use:
With respect to items sold by Amazon, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If the correct price of an item sold by Amazon is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation. Other merchants may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item.

EXAMPLE: TigerDirect: As all prices are subject to change, your order may not be accepted or we may have to communicate price changes or availability issues to you after you place your order.

EXAMPLE: NewEgg: Product Listings ... In the event a product listed on our Web site is labeled with an incorrect price due to some typographical, informational, technical or other error, Newegg.com shall at its sole discretion have the right to refuse and/or cancel any order for said product and immediately amend, correct and/or remove the inaccurate information.

Re:Same rules apply

[AthanasiusKircher]

This is more like the cashier rang up the sale, and then noticed while loading the cart (waiting to ship) that the sticker price didn't match what the register had rung up, and gave you the choice of either paying the sticker price or not buying the item.

This isn't a good analogy. An online transaction is much more formal than checking out in person with a cashier. Often, a customer has to go through multiple pages being presented with a detailed bill, and then being asked to go forward and "confirm" and/or "submit a final order."

So, it would be more like if you were at a store, the cashier worked out your bill, then formally presented your bill to you (perhaps multiple times), you agreed with the cashier on the prices, then the cashier asked you for your payment. But before taking your credit card, the cashier put out his/her hand, looked you in the eye, and said, "Do we have a deal? If so, please confirm formally by shaking my hand." And then you shook the hand as you handed over the credit card.

Then, just as the cashier was about to run the card through, a manager walks by and sees and error and says, "HOLD UP!! There's an error there. Sorry, no deal."

That's a better analogy to this situation. And in this case, while I believe the store may legally have the right to say "no deal" after it asked you to submit and confirm your order, it would be good business practice to honor the confirmed sales agreement that the consumer made. The "cashier" here is the automated system that accepted orders -- and it did NOT catch the error. Someone else later on did and then interrupted the normal process.

It takes a special kind of spoiled brat to throw a tantrum in such a situation.

I don't know that I'd "throw a tantrum" in this situation. But I do think it might be worth at least raising an objection.

Why, you ask? Because aside from all the formal "confirm your order" and "please be sure to check before you submit your final order" (and sometimes even "no cancellation after this" text), many businesses clearly act as though the placing of an online order is in fact some sort of contract... regardless of whether payment has been processed or the item has been shipped.

My personal experience dealing with cancelling orders shows this. I think I've had to cancel about 4 orders in my lifetime because they became significantly backordered after I ordered them -- so they wouldn't be delivered within the time the business said they would.

In two of those cases that I recall, it was easy to cancel. One asked me whether I wanted to cancel at the point they realized it was backordered, and another went ahead and did it easily when requested.

But I had two encounters with businesses who really treated my "confirm your order" as though I had agreed to sit and wait to receive the item for as long as it might take -- they went ahead and charged my card, and they just expected me to wait for months to get my stuff.

In one case, I had to threaten to dispute the charge, etc., but in the other, where the item had been "backordered" for over two months after they charged my card (and I had no reason to expect they'd ever fulfill the order), I had to dispute the charges and report the business to state consumer agencies before they finally refunded my money. They claimed that my order was "final" and there would be no refunds issued since I had confirmed the order. And this was for an established internet business with quite a few positive reviews on a reputable site.

So -- my experience is that when you hit the "confirm" button, that's pretty much when many businesses treat your transaction as completed. Legally, businesses may have the right to modify it afterward, but my experiences suggest that many treat it as "final." And if they treat it as final, why shouldn't a consumer be able to??

Re:Same rules apply

[Salgat]

Actually most places have terms, especially online, that state that pricing errors can result in a revoked transaction. And really, we all know shit happens which is why when it's obvious that it was a pricing error and it's a rare occurrence, then it's understandable. It amazes me the amount of entitlement that some people feel when it comes to taking advantage of a mistake.

Re:Same rules apply

[Immerman]

Granted that is a better analogy. In fact lets make it even better and do away with the cashier entirely - you're in a self-checkout line with no humans around to spot any stupid mistakes that may have slipped into the system. Is it reasonable to demand that the manager honor the fact that the machine, say..., billed you in pennies rather than dollars?

> And if they treat it as final, why shouldn't a consumer be able to?
You certainly should - you did get them to agree to that beforehand, right? After all if they are professionals they got you to explicitly agree to their terms before doing business (you know, all that text nobody reads above the "I agree" button). If you neglected to read even the section headings then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you don't like what you agreed to. And if they didn't make you so agree then you need to ask yourself if you trust these people enough to do business with them despite their unprofessional conduct.

When you get right down to it, it's a matter of how big an ass everyone involved wants to be. I think most people would agree that it's not overly unreasonable to ask a merchant to honor a misprinted advertisement that listed the cost to the store rather than the retail price, especially if that misprint is one of the primary reasons you walked in the door. Asking them to actually take a significant loss because the cash-register malfunctioned though... that's something else entirely. Especially if word got out about the malfunction and your store was mobbed by people fraudulently claiming to intend to pay the sticker price in order to exploit the malfunction.

Re:Same rules apply

[Fastolfe]

I think for the most part you are right. However, if the customer knows he is exploiting an error on their web site to get a product at an unreasonably low price (bad faith), I believe the merchant would have grounds to contest the transaction and could be entitled to reverse it, even if it's completed and even if the customer has a receipt in hand. That being said, "Merchant Makes Error, Sues Customers" isn't a flattering headline.

He is still obligated to deliver them, at the price he charged

I don't believe this is true; the merchant can issue a refund pretty much at any time and cancel the deal. If the merchant was paid, but hasn't performed his obligation, he can't really be *compelled* to. That's essentially slavery. You always have the right to breach a contract. If the other party was harmed by your breach, they also have the right to sue you to get compensated for that harm. It's unlikely that the average person is going to be harmed much more than the money they sent the merchant, so a refund is entirely reasonable compensation.

Re:Same rules apply

[rew]

> Yes.... but I belive that's more about HONORING What you advertise.
> If the printed price they stuck on the goods says "$300" on a $3000 on
> a brand new Macbook pro; they better honor it.
In The Netherlands, the law states that they have to honour the advertized price as long as it can be reasonably assumed not to be an error. With mega-discounts and super-cheap deals for various products the "spot the error" can become difficult. On the other hand, the $300 on the $3000 macbook would be considered an "obvious error".
The $80 for a $800 flight however cannot! The cheap airlines have been selling fights for that kind of rates for ages, so even when an airline that normally doens't do this proposes such a deal, that should be considered "entirely plausible" by the consumer.

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

And, of course, it's then perfectly okay for me to keep the item then, as it is technically 'unrequested merchandise' at the moment it's dropped off, right?

The only way you can "cancel" an item that has already been shipped, is either, for the item to never be delivered to you, or for you to refuse the delivery, causing the item to be sent back.

Any item that you originally ordered is not unrequested merchandise.

Re:Same rules apply

[mysidia]

But that's the point- they CAN do that. They take my order and charge me (and a million other people) on Jan 1st. They then wait until Jan 30th to tell us we aren't getting the items. They've had our money (well, our credit card company's money) in their accounts for 30 days, earning them interest.

And they've had the item that was being shipped to you tied up for those days, so they lost the opportunity to sell that item to someone else for the full correct price (A lost economic cost that is far greater than any 0.1% interest on a few bucks in the bank), when they come to find out some software error, allowed you to get the item into their order processing system with a lower price.

If there is the remote possibility of any interest depends on how frequently they get paid out from their merchant account, anyways. I'm not sure why you even mention it.... by law most business checking accounts aren't even allowed to pay interest, or no interest is paid out; more often than not, merchants have to pay a substantial monthly fee to their banks for their accounts that include a % fee for the processing of every transaction, and receive no interest. More likely than not, some of the fees related to the processing of your credit card transaction won't be returned to the merchant after they "refund" you the purchase.

Retailers don't make money on the banking part of the equation. They spend a lot of money for the security and processing of transactions. Banking is their cost of doing business, not an extra bonus they receive in a few bucks a year interest.

So, it's not an equitable contract, then. If they have more rights than I do (being able to change the price unilaterally, and yank the delivery back days/weeks after I've already paid them), then it's Not a fair contract.

This doesn't mean it's not an equitable contract; you signed up for it, when you agreed to place an order, however --- both you and the retailer have certain risks and possible inconveniences involved in the transaction. It's a fair deal, in the sense, that if you didn't like it: you could purchase the item elsewhere, such as from a local brick and mortar venue.

Just curious if someone could chime in

[alanwarrick4]

Could this possibly fall under E&O insurance claim to offset the loss if it was a software related bug. If it was user error i'm pretty sure it wouldn't be covered but just wondering if this sort of thing can fall in insurance land.

Honor your screwups.

[JWSmythe]

That's part of business. If you screw up, you'd better honor them, and make sure you don't do it again.

I've seen places give away merchandise over accidents like that. ok, so you lost $10k in product, big deal. You also made some very happy customers, who will likely come back.

The opposite is true too.. If you try to come after the customers who bought in good faith, now they won't come back, and neither will their friends.. "friends" has expanded over the last decade or so, goign from "oh, what, a dozen people?" to thousands of Facebook friends who may in turn share your experience with millions. I don't know who "The Brick" is, but I won't even bother shop there now.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[MickyTheIdiot]

Satisfied customers tell one or two people, while angry customers tell dozens of people. Right now you have a massive black-eye situation for this "The Brick" place.

I hadn't heard of them before now. They have created a bad first impression for thousands of people. It's a big screwup and another example of how so many corporate people live in their own little manufactured reality. They have just screwed up something basic that every small shopkeeper learns on the first day.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[ColdWetDog]

They bricked themselves?

Re:Honor your screwups.

[jaymz666]

Good Faith? Really?

There are many people who find these "good deals" and abuse them. Airfares are one thing, where you can't really buy a dozen of them and resell them on ebay, but physical goods like whatever the Brick sells, some "enterprising" individuals can take advantage of.

No, I am not making excuses for anyone, but there's always more than one side to any story like this.

They should have offered to pick up and refund the purchase price, not ask for more money.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[Your.Master]

The Brick is a large Canadian store, mostly for furniture, mattresses, and appliances. The submitter may not even be aware that it's only Canadian. They are infamous for advertising that you can purchase their shit for a very long deferred payment (as they put it, for $0 down, $0 payments, 0% interest for 2 years, back when interest rates were high). These adds have gone on for over 20 years, perhaps much longer.

They got dinged recently for actually requiring down payments despite their advertising, because you pay tax up front, and "administrative fees", and delivery, etc. etc., so they kind of have a reputation for welching on their advertised prices already.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[Attila Dimedici]

I was taught, back when I worked retail, that studies showed that people influence the buying behaviors of, on average, 250 other people. I doubt this has changed by a large number, but 250 lost customers per dissatisfied customer is a pretty steep price to pay. This is especially true when the positive publicity in a situation like this probably exceeds any value you could spend on advertizing.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[fermion]

For walk in sales, that is probably correct. A price is mis-marked, a few customers get the deal, yes you have happy customers. However it is not clear that online customers have such loyalties. They will tend to go where the low prices are, as there is little opportunity cost for doing so. That is why Amazon has what much a loss leading Amazon Prime program. To keep customers coming back not just for low prices, but other perks. Same thing for airlines.

So no, the rules for online are not to fullfill orders that have clearly incorrect prices. If I go into a big grocery store like Krogers, and some disgruntled employee has put a a 50 dollar bottle of wine on sale at $10, they are not going to sell it to me for $10 when it rings up for 50. There is a secondary check there for price, the human element. Likewise, if a computer glitch, maybe put in by a disgruntled employee, allows me to check out for half price, then this is an admitted grey area. My payment has been accepted.

I would say, however, that until a product is formally charged to a customers card, which often happens as it is shipped, and maybe even until it is delivered there the retailer has an opportunity to cancel the order. Possession is, of course, paramount. This is why I would say one the product is delivered the price must be honored. This is a grey area as well, and we have seen cases where retailers have demanded delivered products back, but this to me is clearly bad manners.

So why is Delta honoring the price? I think it is because of delivered product. When I buy a ticket, my card is charged, and I immediately get a confirmation that I am guaranteed a seat on that flight. If something happens and I do not get a seat on the flight, I at minimum am sure to get a seat on a similar flight, often with financial compensation above and beyond that seat. Also, unlike most small retailers, the airlines have algorithms that continuously adjust the price of seats to maximize the total revenue on each flight. Therefore it is harder for airline to use the 'disgruntled employee' excuse.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[znanue]

Interesting, however I would expect that certain individuals had a much broader platform, like Oprah. These days, I'm going to guess that people who regularly use yelp and write reviews, or people who have a lot of twitter followers, might have much broader power to affect consumer decision. There are people on the internet who are not famous whose output I have found and now regard as more trustworthy and interesting than a randomly selected newspaper article. Microbloggers with significant followers come to mind.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[beelsebob]

No, they shouldn't. The deal is already done. If they have delivered the goods and accepted the cash, they have no recourse to decide that they either want to magically undo the contract they've already agreed to, or to decide to alter the contract for more money.

Plain and simple, once the deal is done, they can not go back on it, in any way.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[mwvdlee]

It should be pretty easy to separate the person who bought 1 matress from the person who bought 100 matresses.

Honest customers will understand a shop treats dishonest customers differently.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[Attila Dimedici]

Hence the words "on average" in my post.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[Immerman]

I would be inclined to agree, except that's not what happened. People placed orders, then the error was caught, probably before any part of the actual transaction occurred - most online stores won't actually charge you until your order is ready to ship. Until then you've just had your order tallied and are waiting in line for your chance to pay and get your stuff. Hell, most everybody takes it for granted that they can cancel their order any time before it ships, why are they so outraged that the company reserves the right to do the same thing?

Re:Honor your screwups.

[MikeKD]

So why is Delta honoring the price? I think it is because of delivered product

Nope. It's because the Dept. of Transportation makes them honor the fare:

Delta's contract of carriage states that in the event of an "erroneous" fare, " Delta reserves the right to cancel the ticket purchase and refund all amounts paid by the purchaser or, at the purchaser's option, to reissue the ticket for the correct fare." But rules set forth by the Department of Transportation state otherwise, saying that an airline must honor a purchased ticket, mistake fare or not.

Re:Honor your screwups.

[mrchaotica]

If I go into a big grocery store like Krogers, and some disgruntled employee has put a a 50 dollar bottle of wine on sale at $10, they are not going to sell it to me for $10 when it rings up for 50. There is a secondary check there for price, the human element.

Kroger used to have a policy that if the item was marked wrong, then you got it free. I found an organic whole turkey marked $0.00 just before Thanksgiving, and was very sad to hear that the policy had been changed (to $5 off if the item cost more than $5).

Re:Honor your screwups.

[JWSmythe]

Groupon logic is horribly flawed. They actively encourage vendors to sell under cost, with the hope that customers will return. There's always a chance they will, especially if you treat them well. There are numerous stories online about how the vendors are totally screwed.

http://posiescafe.com/wp/groupon-in-retrospect/

In this blog post, Groupon takes 100% of the sale, promising that customers will always buy more than the ad (and they didn't), and wouldn't limit sales, so they were giving away everything for every Groupon customer for months.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/groupon-cupcake-deal-need-a-cake-bakery-rachel-brown_n_1108676.html

In this story, the story is similar, where far too many customers were sent in, and the vendor was pressured to sell at materials cost, which almost killed them.

Now, in The Brick case (TFA for those not paying attention), the company made the mistake. They were able to limit their losses by resolving the discount problem.

There were several other comments here. One says "what if they bought 100 mattresses?". Well, there's no indication of that in the story. Others are first-hand accounts of the way the company operates, which has included blatant false advertising and other deceptions. That would indicates the real truth behind TFA was intentional. If I, an average consumer, see that I get an outrageous discount, I'll probably go add more items so I can get the better deal. Great. But their plan is to now bill me for the difference.

Some people have said the problem was caught before anything shipped. Great. So cancel the order, and work with the customer. I have seen that happen before. It's not unreasonable. "Sorry, due to a technical error, your order has been cancelled. Please place your order again."

The Brick went totally the other way with it. "Hey, we screwed up and applied the wrong discount, pay this new amount. We don't care about the receipt being the legally binding contract. You owe us." I have seen that before too, usually with con artists who get to exert some sort of leverage. I've mostly heard this with moving companies. "It will be $5,000 to ship your belongings from Point A to Point B." When the day comes for delivery, since they have all of your possessions in their storage yard they demand more for whatever fees they decide to apply.

You get it at car dealerships too. "$22,500 out the door" and hours of dealing with them over paperwork becomes "$22,500 plus tax, tag, dealer prep, showroom fees, and whatever else is now $33,999."

I've heard many stories about car dealerships taking your trade-in car, which they offer to "wash, detail, and inspect", and when it comes time to close the deal and you're presented with a new price *and* an insulting trade-in value, your car is no longer on the lot. It's been "sold", which usually means moved to another lot. So before you've signed the paperwork, you're stuck between walking home or accepting their offer. I've known people who had to go as far as to call law enforcement to report their car stolen, just to get their old car back.

Personally, I've never had to go that far with a car dealer. I trust them less than a thug who says he wants to steal my wallet. At least the thug is up front about what they're going to do. I demand to know what they will give me for my trade-in before I do anything else. Once I was offered $100 trade-in on a $10,000 car. Ok, so you're a crook. I'll go buy elsewhere.

Of course, all of those are dirty tactics, and the company will deny any knowledge of such activity ever happening, but they still do it. So TFA about The Brick isn't some sob story about a company being screwed by the customers. It's a sob story of a con gone bad.

Point of no return

[maroberts]

I'm not sure, but I think if they've actually dispatched the goods at the agreed price, then the companies have no legal redress. If they find the error before dispatch, then they're perfectly entitled to correct the problem.

Re:Point of no return

[JWSmythe]

Of course they have legal redress. Well, maybe not totally legal, but accepted in the current environment. You tell the customer to pay what you think they owe, even though they have the product. If they don't pay, you can file with the local courts, which cost money, or stick it on their credit report. It may be dirty, but not illegal. They'll get a world of bad press from it though.

They should have sucked up the GOOD press about it. "Wooo, we screwed up and gave stuff away for free! Enjoy! And here's our latest offer, 25% off new purchases! Coupon code: WESCREWEDUP"

Someone didn't pass the customer relations portion of their training.

Re:Point of no return

[dcollins117]

In the US it is not legal to advertise one price and then charge another higher price at the cash register. I'm not interested enough to look it up but I believe it runs afoul of false advertising laws.

I have gotten the sale price on physical items after the sale is over because some clerk screwed up and forgot to change the price in the aisle. There was no ambiguity at the register once I pointed it out.

Re:Point of no return

[znanue]

Of course they have legal redress. Well, maybe not totally legal, but accepted in the current environment. You tell the customer to pay what you think they owe, even though they have the product. If they don't pay, you can file with the local courts, which cost money, or stick it on their credit report. It may be dirty, but not illegal. They'll get a world of bad press from it though.

They should have sucked up the GOOD press about it. "Wooo, we screwed up and gave stuff away for free! Enjoy! And here's our latest offer, 25% off new purchases! Coupon code: WESCREWEDUP"

Someone didn't pass the customer relations portion of their training.

This seems too facile a statement. We don't know their cash flow or projected cash flow, whether the PR hit would quantitatively affect the bottom line worse than eating the bad press and recovering the funds, etc. For proof of a company having terrible PR but making windfall profits, look at Walmart. PR is, and always should be, just one consideration.

Re:Point of no return

[gnasher719]

Of course they have legal redress. Well, maybe not totally legal, but accepted in the current environment. You tell the customer to pay what you think they owe, even though they have the product. If they don't pay, you can file with the local courts, which cost money, or stick it on their credit report. It may be dirty, but not illegal. They'll get a world of bad press from it though.

The company most definitely has no right to get more money. Depending on the country and it's laws and what exactly happened, they may be able to void the contract and take the goods back, but the buyer never, ever, entered a contract to buy goods at a higher price and therefore never, ever can be forced to pay a higher price.

Re:Point of no return

[JWSmythe]

I went looking for the US laws on it. The story has a statement about the Canadian laws at the end of the article which says they can't do it.

One of the stories I did run across, which I've already unfortunately closed. The story was about a guy who bought a car. He then wanted a different color so he went back and they traded him cars with a fresh contract. Shortly after, the dealer told him there was a $4,000 price difference. he said "that's not what my contract says." and ignored them. The dealership got law enforcement involved, who did arrest him, but let him go with no charges filed because ... well ... the guy was in the right.

You sell me a product. I pay for product. You can't later decide the product should have cost more. ...or as companies are more than happy to say, your receipt is a legally binding contract, and you are bound by the terms and conditions including the return policy and referenced documents. Dammit, just because I opened it up, and then checked to see what thermite would do to the components, they won't let me return it. Something about open packages or damage, or some such nonsense.

Re:Point of no return

[ganjadude]

interesting story. I was at lowes doing some christmas shopping, we had decided on a 25$ limit for each other this year and I found a gift card to some outdoors shop that my buddy really likes so I went to buy it. When at the register the card could not be found in the system. They called IT and sales audit and they realized they screwed up, the cards were invalid (bad batch) and should have been pulled from the shelves. He ended up giving me a 50$ card for 25$s because of the mixup. This is good customer service

Yes

[iCEBaLM]

If your website fucks up and gives me a good price, that's not my fault, and you shouldn't be "punishing" the customer for it.

Re: Yes

[pixelpusher220]

'Get some perspective'

Exactly, the company should have realized that a few products sold at a loss are far and away cheaper than an entire internet being pissed off at you. Perspective isn't a one way street.

Re: Yes

[dryeo]

We're talking about "The Brick" where their total business model involves taking advantage of stupid people who can't do math, don't understand interest and don't read the fine print on the contract. Considering they've been using this business model for at least 20 years and are still in business I doubt that more pissed off potential customers would faze them.

Re: Yes

[pixelpusher220]

Never heard of them myself. Sounds like they've been living off the lack of consumer voice against them. If it's generally small stuff, people just get frustrated and don't tell that many people. Now that the customers can communicate amongst themselves...they may be in for an eye opening experience.

Of course the next Kardashian scanda...I mean marketing event...may make people forget again.

Demand?

[HornWumpus]

Someplace sold me something, then they demand more money?

Can you guess my answer?

Re:Demand?

[TubeSteak]

"The advertised price in the flyer and on the product pages was correct when these customers added the item to their shopping cart and did not reflect this additional discount until the shopping cart was checked out. The Brick apologizes for the confusion and is currently working to contact all affected customers to advise of correct pricing."

Real Coallier, who works for Quebec's office of consumer protection, said such online transactions can't be modified after the fact and said customers should file complaints if The Brick asks them for money.

I guess the only other alternative is to reverse any orders that the customer doesn't willingly repay.

Re:Demand?

[dcollins117]

Can you guess my answer?

I could probably guess the message, but I doubt the language would be as colorful :)

Re:Demand?

[thegarbz]

The alternative is legal action. In most countries a case like this is a binding legal contract which one party has failed to honour. There was offer (online sale), acceptance (checkout), and consideration paid (money changed hands). Now one party hasn't held up their end of the bargain (goods being exchanged) which won't end well for them if it goes to court regardless if the sale was made in error or not.

Reminds me of a story many years ago where a guy bought quite a large yacht on ebay for less than $1000. When the seller refused to hand it over after the money was transferred he got taken to court and lost. Hence ebay has warnings saying all sales are legally binding contracts.

well, yes.......

[sp4ni3l]

i think the story gives the answer already, but it of course depends whether the company can carry the loss

Don't be a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

>have we reached a point at which online retailers are expected to just swallow such costs for PR purposes, as part of doing web business?"

Sure, if you wanna be greedy about it.
Mistake in my favor like that, if they asked for the extras back, I would have no problem returning it. I don't feel I am entitled simply because of a mistake.

But hey, if they say keep it, I probably would! And feel positive about that retailer and that would factor into my future shopping.

Delta

[McGruber]

Delta, to their PR benefit, have swallowed the losses, and the lucky customers have shared their delight via social media

What losses does Delta have to swallow? They're going to make up for it by charging those "lucky" customers change fees, luggage fees, "Economy Comfort" fees, and for onboard entertainment, Gogo internet and food served onboard. Also, good luck getting full frequent flyer credit for the discounted flights.

Re:Delta

[CohibaVancouver]

>What losses does Delta have to swallow?

Losses resulting from the fact they likely could have sold those seats for much more money. Most flights depart full, or nearly-full, these days, so they would have sold those seats.

> charging those "lucky" customers change fees

Only if they change their tickets. Most passengers don't. I flew 66 segments last year. Didn't change a single ticket.

> luggage fees

Only if they check a bag. Pack a rollaboard and then check it at the gate for free.

> "Economy Comfort" fees

Only if you upgrade to a better seat.

>onboard entertainment

Bring your tablet.

> Gogo internet

Then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy internet

> and food served onboard

Then bring your own food.

I'm old enough to remember when flights included free bags, a free meal and free beer. Indexed to today's dollars, airline tickets were much more expensive than they are today, even if you include all the paid extras.

Re:Delta

[JWSmythe]

Nah, they charge everyone those fees. They may as well give away their tickets, considering the other fees included. I'm surprised they haven't added ticket counter fees, and terminal boarding fees. Those would be cash at the time of use, of course. Asking for directions to your next flight? $5. Asking if the flight is on time? $5. Asking to upgrade? $10 before they tell you if there are even upgrades available. $5 to ask if a flight is on time when waiting to pick someone up. $10 arrival waiting area fee. $5/bag luggage belt fee. Hell, I'd pay an extra $5 just to be sure my luggage got on the same plane as me.

Re:Delta

[Your.Master]

I think it's only fair that they don't get full frequent flyer credit on those flights, really.

Are you suggesting that Delta would not have charged those customers all of those things if they didn't get a sweet deal on their tickets?

Re:Delta

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting in 2014 Delta's frequent flyer program is based off of how much you spend on the ticket not the miles flown. The question of how frequent flyer points should be determined for these website error tickets will soon become irrelevant.

Re:Delta

[chuckugly]

One place I go for scuba diving charges at the terminal (cash pls) for foreign visitors to exit.

Re:Delta

[demonlapin]

If you fly frequently at all, you don't. Delta AmEx card holders don't pay baggage fees, Medallion members don't pay them, first class doesn't pay them.

Re:Delta

[JWSmythe]

It all depends on the airline, and as you said, your class. Employers have always booked me on the airline and flights of their choice, usually the cheapest for that particular trip.

I don't happen to have any American Express cards. According to their site, you have to fly 25,000 Delta Medallion Qualification Miles (MQM) or 30 qualifying segments per calendar year, to reach the minimum status for one free bag in economy class.

So if I were flying JFK to LAX (2475 MQM), I'd have to make the trip 11 times to qualify. That's not so bad. If I was making the trip monthly, on the second leg in the 6th month, I'd get to check one bag for free. Wow, talk about generosity. Unfortunately, that doesn't work if my employer books me on another airline for some of those trips, either because it's cheaper, or because the Delta flight is full (or both).

Re:Delta

[demonlapin]

If you fly once a month, an Amex Platinum quickly pays for itself.

One word...

[sensei moreh]

Yes

Delta had no choice

[aflyingcat]

Apparently, recently adopted DOT truth in advertising regulations now require Delta to honor those fares that people managed to book. It's less an enlightened appreciation of PR on Delta's part so much as they had no choice. I bet given a free choice Delta would have made the same decision as Brick.

Re:Delta had no choice

[pixelpusher220]

Gov't regulation....working!

Re:Delta had no choice

[TechyImmigrant]

That's why they charge you for food, water, bags and farting after you've paid for the ticket. Anything except the ticket will be charged extra for.

Better that than be accused of bait-and-switch

[QilessQi]

If you entice a customer with low prices, and then rescind those prices after the sale, it feels basically the same as a bait-and-switch fraud. It's probably closer to resort fees and similar scams, where it turns out the low price being advertised doesn't cover certain mandatory charges. Either way, bad PR.

In contrast, if a business says that the low price was a mistake but then makes it known that they will eat the cost, it's good PR.

So unless it will bankrupt you, yeah, this seems like a no-brainer.

Re:Better that than be accused of bait-and-switch

[gnasher719]

If you entice a customer with low prices, and then rescind those prices after the sale, it feels basically the same as a bait-and-switch fraud.

In the UK, it is quite clear: The customer has no right to get a deal that is offered. However, if an item is intentionally displayed at a lower price than it is sold at, that would be something that Trading Standards would be interested in. So if you see it offered cheap, they refuse to sell it, and then don't change the displayed price as soon as possible, then the store is in trouble.

Re:Better that than be accused of bait-and-switch

[whoever57]

In the UK, it is quite clear: The customer has no right to get a deal that is offered.

But in this case, the customer has already paid. The shop has accepted payment for the product at the reduced price. That makes the situation very different from the scenario you describe.

The Brick stinks

[grub]

People outside of Canada have probably never heard of The Brick until now. It's one of the stores I refuse to go in to. The salespeople jump on you the moment you step in the door and don't stop.

Re:The Brick stinks

[Ralph Spoilsport]

No shit, eh? I would rather go to IKEA than the Brick any day of the week.

Re:The Brick stinks

[grub]

Actually the IKEA here (Winnipeg) is very relaxed. They don't get in the way and will help when asked.

Re:The Brick stinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people used The Brick's website so that they wouldn't have to enter one of their stores, ever.

Re:The Brick stinks

[fast turtle]

If a sales person jumped me as soon as I walked in the door, they'd be going out same door with broken Limbs for Assualt. If they had a weapon when I walked in and did that, they'd be going out the door to be placed in a body bag with me fully justified

Accepting payment for goods/services is a contract

[Anonymous Coward]

As such, they should accept the losses.

Now, they can ASK for more money... but the customer isn't required to give it.

After that, they can talk to lawyers.

Legally, the company's on the hook.

[Anonymous Coward]

They entered into a contract to sell for a particular price. The buyer accepted the offer and made the purchase. Now the seller wants to change the terms of an executed contract. Good luck with that.

Different response due to difference in losses

[rollingcalf]

When Delta sold seats at large discounts, some of those seats would have gone empty if the discount glitch didn't happen, and without the discount Delta would have eaten the costs of flying with those empty seats anyway. For some flights, selling the heavily discounted seats may even have been a net gain financially for Delta.

But with the furniture retailer, they had bigger real losses from the discount glitch because without the huge discounts, the items would have remained available for somebody else to purchase at full price.

So Delta is willing to bear the losses because their losses from this were less severe or perhaps nonexistent, whereas for the furniture retailer the losses are too large for them to accept without trying to recoup what they can.

Standard airline tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

This happens way too often on airline web sites for it to be a mistake.

IMO they do it just often enough to keep people constantly searching their sites.

Delta HAD to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Delta had to honor the price.

Now, the AP adds that "new Department of Transportation regulations, aimed at truth in advertising, require airlines to honor any mistake fares offered." So it would seem the law is on the buyer's side.

Does ANYONE think that airlines would do this willingly?

Airlines doing what's customary

[CohibaVancouver]

By and large, airlines have a history of honouring 'fare mistakes.' There are of course, exceptions, e.g. KAL's $500 fare to Palau...

http://crankyflier.com/2011/11/22/how-mistake-fares-get-filed-and-why-korean-messed-up/

Day after day Flyertalk.com has examples, e.g.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals-372/

...but most of the time they do.

Retail is new to the game, so they're still making up the rules as they go along.

Re:Airlines doing what's customary

[CohibaVancouver]

FAA law states that once a sale confirmation has been given to the customer, the airline must honor the price

FAA law states this? Really? Can you provide a cite?

I find it hard to believe airlines are required to honour mistake fares - Just read that KAL example I cite above, where they decided not to.

Re:Airlines doing what's customary

[CohibaVancouver]

FAA laws only apply to usa airlines obviously

Incorrect.

FAA rules apply to any airline arriving or departing from the USA, regardless of nationality - So a KAL flight offering USA - Palau service absolutely falls under FAA rules when it is servicing the USA.

Government consumer protection agencies

[just fiddling around]

The Brick is known in Canada for deceptive business practices, so the consumer protection agencies have taken to the media to inform that customers do NOT have to give the money back.

The retailer advertised those prices, and tries to trick the customer into cancelling the sale to wiggle out of the sales. That's a tactic known as bait-and-switch, and it's illegal.

Re:Government consumer protection agencies

[seanvaandering]

Just read the amount of complaints they get: http://www.bbb.org/edmonton/business-reviews/furniture-retail/the-brick-warehouse-corporation-in-edmonton-ab-100036/complaints

Anyone who shops there is asking for it. Even the BBB itself gives them a F rating.

Real time double entry bookkeeping

[hamjudo]

A few trading firms have learned to have a second system that monitors transactions to keep tabs on profit and loss. If the things swing out of the expected range, it is time to have a human look at the situation. If things get really out of hand, it is time to rate limit transactions, or halt them out right. Sudden extreme profits usually indicates a data entry error on your system, not that the rest of the market has gotten really stupid.

Most inventory systems have a way to track cost of goods, age of inventory, and expected profit margin. Eventually retailers will start filling in those details, and tracking them, so they can notice when something goes expensively wrong.

Swallow it and learn

[Ralph Spoilsport]

dear Brick:
First: fuck you.

Second: If you had a giant sign in the front window of your store that said "All sofas are $5" and then when people demanded their $5 sofa and you said "Nuh uh", you'd be sued for false advertising. Therefore:

Third: Suck it up and deal with it. It won't put you out of business. Fire the clod who lost you all that money, but honour your mistakes.

Example: Back in the late 1990s, A certain online musical instrument website was selling the (then new) Yamaha CS2X keyboard for $450. Why? Because someone fucked up and switched the price with the CS1X (which was wrongly priced at $850). I bought the CS2X, and loved it. It was a great keyboard that I got for dirt cheap. I still have it, even though two of the keys don't work anymore. And I still go back to that retailer. Their prices are competitive (they're not really higher or lower than anyone else by very much) but I saved $400 with them. That bought my loyalty. Now, I don't always buy from them all the time, but I *go there first* and if they have what I want at a fair price, I will usually buy from them. If someone has the same thing at a super cheap price, then I'll buy from the cheaper, but if all things are roughly equal, I'll go with the people who fucked up AND HONOURED THE DEAL. Because I know I can trust them.

So, dear Brick: fuck off. I may have to build IKEA stuff, but 9 times out of 10 it's cheaper and better than your junk.

Companies Should Honor The Published Prices...

[CAOgdin]

...and Specs, even if they are absurdly wrong, but ONLY if they expect to keep their customers...as "The Brick" will no doubt discover.

This isn't, to me, a moral issue: It is just acknowledging that sometimes mistakes happen, and the customer has behaved by buying into those terms as offered. The customer isn't wrong here; they're just taking advantage of an apparent price advantage. The seller isn't wrong here; they just made a mistake.

"Customer satisfaction" is a core principle of capitalism, although many capitalists (to their own disadvantage) still refuse to understand that fact.

Re:Companies Should Honor The Published Prices...

[gnasher719]

"Customer satisfaction" is a core principle of capitalism, although many capitalists (to their own disadvantage) still refuse to understand that fact.

That's nonsense. It's not a core principle of capitalism. It is _often_ a good strategy, but not always. And there are people whom a company cannot satisfy while still making money; those people should just be avoided as customers.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting question. I'd counter "have we reached the point where we think honoring our commitments is only meaningful as a PR move?"

If your answer is "but they didn't know what they were getting into," I'm inclined to challenge your understanding of the term "commitment."

Except Consumers are treated like Dirt

[tuppe666]

This article is weird, for every consumer that catches a break(in this instance because of a mass consumer backlash), there are thousands treated badly. I cannot remember the last time. I had good (real) customer service. Every company seems to rely on the fact that you have little free time, and takes the piss. Internet\Mobile(sales and carriers)\Computer(Electronics) Companies treat you like parasites after you make the sale; returning\replacing items and and Cancelling a service\subscription is near impossible. There are no exceptions, it has become profitable to treat the consumer badly; breaking\circumventing standard consumer legal rights is routine.

Re:Required by Federal Law

[pixelpusher220]

So you're saying that regulation worked?

Whether they would have or not is irrelevant. they did.

Personal Responsibility has become this.

[geekmux]

"...have we reached a point at which online retailers are expected to just swallow such costs for PR purposes, as part of doing web business?"

Uh, yeah, I do. It's called personal responsibility. If you've screwed up and cost the business even millions of dollars, then hold the person who screwed up accountable to try and eliminate the chances of it happening again.

THAT is what I expect. Not some weak-ass horribly worded excuse to attempt to make the consumer somehow feel guilty about a providers mistake that they happened to capitalize on.

Re:Personal Responsibility has become this.

[nedlohs]

I take it you also line up at the bank waiting for a teller rather than using the ATM outside. After all what happened to the poor human who used to do that work? Do you get a discount for now doing their labor?

And never use those check in machines at the airport let alone online check in (taking away the job of the guy who services the machines at the airport as well).

Re:Personal Responsibility has become this.

[nedlohs]

Whereas I've found for those times where I have one item to buy the self check outs have been fast and easy.

Re:Personal Responsibility has become this.

[mpe]

At least ATMs and airline check-in kiosks tend to speed up my transaction. I have yet to see a "self-serve" grocery checkout system that wasn't a complete disaster, constantly failing to scan items or recognize when they're placed in the bag. A lot of the time, you have to wait for a person to come over anyway and clear up computer errors.

On the other hand I've rarely found supermarket operators who won't put every heavy item in one bag. Maybe they just don't understand the concept of customers who walk...

Yes

[SoftwareArtist]

A sale is a type of contract. Once you agree to a contract, you're bound by it. You don't get to say, "Wait, I didn't really intend to give you that good a deal, I'm changing the terms I agreed to!"

If you're going to write a computer program to agree to contracts on your behalf, you'd better make darned sure that program works correctly. If it doesn't, you're stuck with the consequences.

They should learn from this

[TomGreenhaw]

I bet the first airline promoting a policy of randomly offering 90% off or free first class to every X users would get a big boost in business.

Re:They should learn from this

[_Sharp'r_]

I bet the first airline promoting a policy of randomly offering 90% off or free first class to every X users would get a big boost in business.

And then they'd stop after people learned to go to checkout to see if they'd "won", and if not stop or get a refund, clear their cookies, etc... and try again.

Re:They should learn from this

[TomGreenhaw]

:-) good point - give them the refund check or upgrade when they check in.

Not Legal in all states (or any even?)

[enharmonix]

I can't speak for the rest of the states. In Texas there is a lot of buyer beware, but there is also quite a bit of beware of buyer to balance that out. If you accidentally discount something and it could be reasonably assumed to be true (i.e., it wasn't an obvious typo), then you get that deal whether they meant to give it to you or not. To use a current product as an example, while "XBOX One now $44.99, save $50.00!" is obviously a typo, "$50 off XBOX One" sounds reasonable enough to be true. You may not get the XBOX at $44.99, but they do have to honor $449.99 for a $499.99 XBOX.

However, is this just Texas? I always thought these were FTC rules, but I'm not sure it really is or how it is enforced. Most retailers are cooperative. If they forgot to take signage down, didn't switch out their price tags, or stocked something on the wrong shelf without identifying the product the price applies to, I've always gotten the deal they didn't mean to offer.

Re:Not Legal in all states (or any even?)

[enharmonix]

Sorry, the point is 50% can reasonably be assumed to be a genuine offer. The Brick may not have a choice but to honor the discount, at least in some parts of the country.

Re:Not Legal in all states (or any even?)

[gnasher719]

However, is this just Texas? I always thought these were FTC rules, but I'm not sure it really is or how it is enforced. Most retailers are cooperative. If they forgot to take signage down, didn't switch out their price tags, or stocked something on the wrong shelf without identifying the product the price applies to, I've always gotten the deal they didn't mean to offer.

It will all depend on the country, and on the situation. In the UK, the company makes an offer, you accept the offer by ordering, the company finalises the contract by delivering. They cannot be forced to deliver, except that knowingly offering lower than they wish to sell is misleading the customer and has consequences.

Now if the item is delivered, they can say this was al a mistake. They might say they want the item back, in which case it is up to the company to get it back, and if you unpacked it, or in the case of consumables if you consumed some, that's just tough for the company. You don't have to help them get the items back, and you'd never be obliged in any way to pay more than you ordered for. You _can_ claim that there was no mistake and refuse to let go of the item and things would then go to court.

In practice, what they and you would do would depend on the amount of error. If the item usually is sold for £500, and you paid £400, I wouldn't bother trying to get it back. If you paid £50, I'd probably try to get it back and a court would probably believe that it was a mistake.

Re:Not Legal in all states (or any even?)

[enharmonix]

Yeah, I agree. I hit Submit to soon and left the bit out about Brick's mistake looking reasonable. Then I tried replying to myself to correct the omission but I guess I forgot to submit because I don't see it. (It's been a long time since I've commented on Slashdot but I really should not be having this much trouble with the UI concept called the "button." It's been around a while... I should get it by now.)

wow, it's worth reading the article

[sribe]

Seriously.

1) An asshole spokesman for Brick accuses customers of knowingly taking advantage of them, outright claiming that customers knew the discount was an error.

2) The spokesman continues on to say that they're "doing exactly what the customer wanted us to do" by "honoring" the correct price.

3) A spokesman for the local government says what Brick is doing is illegal.

Is it the business process that is broken?

[Bomarc]

My response to both of these is: Ever hear of “QA”? Hire some. For Brick, the loss of credibility is substantial. For Delta and Brick, the loss of dollars is quite high. As a QA professional, there have been many times that I’ve more than paid for my keep by finding critical bugs in developer code. However is this era of “ship it today, we’ll fix it tomorrow” (and they never do fix it); problems such as these abound. Don’t blame the customer for you being short sighted. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the oven. For these (and more) you should fire your QA managers (or may chance hire one in the first place?). Your software development process is broken, and you need to take this as a warning. How many times have people blamed the computer (“Computer error”); when the fault is with the business process (or lack)? How many business are connected to the internet that shouldn't be - or shouldn't have been (read: Target)?

Re:Is it the business process that is broken?

[Shados]

The issue is checkout flows for big companies is extremely complex. Those are usually piles of software interacting with each other, and a lot of it isn't even handled by IT. The marketing department sets up the rules, schedule them, and at the designated hour, they start.

So some mistakes happen. Sometimes you're right, the company's stupid. Other times, its a known risk that is accepted. The company I work for does business in countless countries and locals, each with their own marketing department, and thousands of marketing channels, all of which interact with the checkout in different subtle ways. We probably have 60 QA people overseeing JUST that part (not counting the rest of the site).

When it comes to the markdowns and promotion rules, that is handled purely by marketing (unless they make a particularly complicated one, then it becomes a project and QA is involved). Otherwise the amount of QA people needed to test them out would inflate 10x and the QA infrastructure to be able to test all combinations would also grow exponentially.

Sometimes a mistake happen and we lose a few hundred thousand dollars. its rare, and its a lot less money than testing it all would cost. Risk vs reward.

Re:Is it the business process that is broken?

[Bomarc]

"Sometimes a mistake happen"... I believe it is more frequent than you (or the company) let on, as Myer, Brick and Delta now know. I don't believe that it is "risk vs reward"; it's "risk vs Greed".

Having worked for big companies ... frequently the biggest "risk" comes from short sided and an expected reward. Worked for a company that wanted to use "real" customer data for testing. I balked, and was over-ruled. Was told "there can't be a mix of test environment and real environment". Two days into the test run, we were getting customer complaints: There billing was off... shucks, they were seeing test data. About three months after my contract ended, the state AG office was investigating the company... use of real customer data for testing.

I've also heard the "10x increase of QA" chant. That is nothing but alarmist (unless they don't have QA).

fair?

[GoChickenFat]

"Fair" is the point when the transaction is completed. Advertising has nothing to do with it at the point the transaction is completed unless there is an agreed upon terms to correct a mistake.

Re:fair?

[msauve]

"unless there is an agreed upon terms to correct a mistake."

Say, for instance, website terms of sale which specifically allow them the right to "correct any error, inaccuracy or omission at any time without prior notice or liability to you or any other person" and "reject, correct, cancel or terminate any order, including accepted orders for any reason?"

Re:fair?

[pspahn]

And what of the case where a customer is incorrectly charged *too much*? The sticker on the tin says $5 and the line-item on the receipt says $10. The transaction is already completed, so fair is fair?

Re:fair?

[TechyImmigrant]

Nordstrom sold us a rather fancy linen handkerchief for a bizarrely low price last year. The item wasn't labeled. We asked the price. They looked on the computer and it was 10% of what we and the guy behind the counter were expecting. He called a manger. They agreed it was on the computer so they had to bite it and sell it to us at that price. He suggested we buy the other one as well, since they were that cheap but we only needed one so declined.

Some places understand that biting it is better in the long run. It doesn't give people another reason to hate them and avoid shopping there.

Re:fair?

[Bert64]

You should be given a final price before you pay, you should read this final screen and identify any problems at this stage. After you've paid you've accepted the deal.
If they charge you more than the final checkout screen states then its fraud plain and simple.

Re:fair?

[whoever57]

Say, for instance, website terms of sale which specifically allow them the right to "correct any error, inaccuracy or omission at any time without prior notice or liability to you or any other person" and "reject, correct, cancel or terminate any order, including accepted orders for any reason?"

Most western countries have laws limiting what terms in contracts can be enforced. I suspect that Brick's ability to "correct" an order in Brick's favor would not get very far if challenged in court. But does Brick have the legal right to cancel an order and refund the customer in full?

Re:fair?

[pspahn]

So the argument is that you need to read the fine print. That's wonderful. What a great business practice.

You might be displayed a "final price" before checkout, but that is definitely not always the price you end up paying. According to GP, though, that's quite alright because the transaction is complete.

Re:fair?

[Dahamma]

You should be given a final price before you pay, you should read this final screen and identify any problems at this stage. After you've paid you've accepted the deal.
If they charge you more than the final checkout screen states then its fraud plain and simple.

No, that's the WHOLE POINT. A mistake is not fraud. If they charge you too much by mistake it's no different than if they charge you too little. Or, in fact the only difference in that contract is in the perspective, and of course almost everyone posting here is coming from the consumer's perspective. Is it fraud if they undercharge you and you don't correct them?

Re:fair?

[Dahamma]

Moral of the story is...

Wait, you bought a FUCKING LINEN HANDKERCHIEF? And "needed one"? What, were you stocking up for a time traveling expedition!?

Are you bringing your own weapons?

Re:fair?

[TechyImmigrant]

Specifically we needed an undecorated one of decent fabric and about the right size, because getting the fabric involved driving to the other side of town and we would have had to buy more than we needed. It was to be lined with custom ornate tatting, only possible/financially feasible because a family member is an expert in tatting. If she started then she'd be done by the time the baby finished gestating, which is how it turned out.

Maybe you're so bitter because no one made a museum quality tatted handkerchief for you when you were born.

Re:fair?

[mpe]

Most western countries have laws limiting what terms in contracts can be enforced. I suspect that Brick's ability to "correct" an order in Brick's favor would not get very far if challenged in court. But does Brick have the legal right to cancel an order and refund the customer in full?

Possibly. Though more likely if they took orders for goods they cannot supply. Though from the report it sounds like they are trying too ask for more money whilst holding onto that they have already been paid.

Re:fair?

[Hognoxious]

Maybe you're so bitter because no one made a museum quality tatted handkerchief for you when you were born.

I was going to say that I seem to have survived OK without one, but now you mention it I do sometimes have a feeling that something is missing from my life.

Re:Shelf label laws...

[RobertLTux]

I think the general law is in any case of a difference in price the customer gets the lowest price offered.

AND THE EMPLOYEE DESTROYS THE TAG WITH THE ERROR.

I have actually told customers that a bugged tag is good RIGHT NOW and if they leave and come back i will have removed the tag (i was sales support so it was kind of my job).

don't give spirit airlines any more ideas

[Joe_Dragon]

They have BS fees like that

Re:don't give spirit airlines any more ideas

[JWSmythe]

A bunch of them do. And I haven't been tracking them well enough to know which ones do what. The majority of my flying is for work, so I just get on the flight I'm told to. The bean counters get upset when I turn in huge expenses associated with the flight. :)

QA??? the coders are they own QA and we save

[Joe_Dragon]

Why pay for QA when we can get the coders to due that and the web site users are beta testers.

The last time we had QA the PHB dropped in saw them just sitting at the same page all day long (well that is what the non tech PHB said and said we do we need this? and fired them all)

Re:QA??? the coders are they own QA and we save

[Bomarc]

Why pay for QA when we can get the coders to due that and the web site users are beta testers.

My point exactly, which is why there are so many problems (Coders are NOT QA/Test... )

The last time we had QA the PHB dropped in saw them just sitting at the same page all day long (well that is what the non tech PHB said and said we do we need this? and fired them all)

Bad leadership, bad management. If the (PHB) management can't properly handle a QA staff, it should be the (PHB) management that should be fired. Who ever took the PHB recommendation; should also be fired.

Any QA worth their salt (may chance those QA should have been replaced) should be able to justify the expense of their working. I've saved all of I've companies that I've worked for money, from errors in PM, to finding bugs ("How'd he find that one") to finding errors in process. The biggest problem that I've had is management won't listen.

Delta had no choice

[thesandbender]

Carriage laws in the US prevent a ticket price from being changed after it is purchased. This includes canceling the ticket because of the price it was issued at (because this is effectively the same as changing the price of the ticket since the consumer would have to repurchase it). You'll notice that Delta's carriage policy specifically outlines that they will never sell a ticket for $0 so they can excluded it. Since they can't state this for any other fare price, they can't exclude it and it falls under the general carriage policy. http://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta-www/pdfs/legal/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf It would be different if, say, Kayak or Expedia screwed up and gave the wrong ticket price... but since this was on the carriers website and they are dealing directly with the customer, they are SoL.

Amazon Did it Too

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Here's a little story about Amazon doing the same thing.

http://slashdot.org/story/07/02/15/1356226/amazon-adjusts-prices-after-sales-error

Some of the details in the Amazon story are missing though:

(1) It was a 2-for-1 sale on DVD box sets where they double-discounted the price of the cheaper DVD set. Some people bought identically priced sets and so paid $0, but a lot of people bought two sets with different prices so they paid the nominal difference.

(2) Amazon corrected the error on the website within hours, but continued shipping some of the orders for up to 4 days later so they clearly knew about the error and still choose to let merchandise ship rather than make the effort to put an internal hold on it.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

That's not how it works in Canada.... if you have completed a purchase at a price that the retailer never intended, once you realize the error, you are legally obligated to either return the difference, or you can return the item and receive a complete refund (even if the retailer otherwise has no return policy).. The retailer will have to sue you to get it, but they will definitely win if they can show that they never intended to sell it for that price. The operative words here are "never intended". If they intended to sell something for a particular price for a certain period and by human error neglected to remove the advertisement when the period ended, they can still be obligated to sell it for that price. But the price has to at least be something that they actually intended to offer at the time that they initially offered it. Computer errors, typos, or other calculation errors do not count. If a customer knowingly tries to keep an item that the retailer has claimed and can clearly show they had no intention of ever selling it for the price the customer obtained it for, the customer is basically no different from a thief... and in some cases, a Canadian court may even treat them as such if they had ample opportunity to correct the issue and deliberately chose not to.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

Customers are perfectly welcome to file complaints... but ultimately, the price was not ever one that the Brick intended. Operative words here... "not ever". The price of the goods wouldn't be getting modified after the fact... because the price they were sold at wasn't ever the real price in the first place. Admittedly the customer may not have any reasonable way of knowing that, and they would be welcome to return the item for a full refund (even if the store would not have otherwise offered a return) but they cannot lay legal claim to an item that was sold to them at a price that was below what the retailer had *ever* agreed to sell it for. Now it may very well be that the reason why the Brick is offering the customers a discount on something as a thank you for returning the item or paying the difference is because it will cost the Brick more than that discount to sue them for it... (which is what they would have to do if they want the money back and the customer does not voluntarily return it), but the store would still win.

No sympathy for business.

[Xeno man]

I've never had any sympathy for business that screw up just because they want to save money. Business run entirely by young, barley trained teenagers because the owner doesn't want to pay any more for some experienced help or spend some time actually training it's staff. Then you find out your untrained employees are not charging enough or giving out too much change and you're loosing money, well what the hell did you expect.

Now things are online but not much has changed. Now they pay the lowest wage they can to programers to get the website ready for now, but they don't want to spend money for quality control. Sites go live with little testing and zero monitoring. My opinion is if you want a computer running your business, you make damn sure that it is doing it correctly and if it's not, that is your own fault and you need to suffer the consequences that go with that.

What about Healthcare.gov

[TJEx]

Reports have it that when people can sign up they get quoted a price with subsidies only to find out after 3 letters from the state the price is 3 to 5 times more than what the website said and you don't get any subsidies. It would be funny if someone sues the government and insurance companies for changing the price after they completed the purchase and are waiting to pay.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

Yes, intent is the relevant factor.

If an object is mispriced, and that price was *NOT* put there by the retailer, the retailer does not have any obligation to honor the price.

The retailer, in this case, put one price on the product... and an error in the computer calculations caused the software to assign another price to it... but that other price is not what the retailer put there.

In a nutshell, typo's don't count.

A complex issue

[gman003]

I see many analogies here to situations where a seller advertizes an incorrect rate, but are legally bound to uphold it. This is a reasonable analogy, but it is still only an analogy. Many seem opposed to the idea of ever having the buyer be at fault because of the obvious possibilities for abuse, but many seem equally opposed to having the customer never be at fault because sometimes they truly are at fault. In both cases debate seems to focus on the intentions of the seller, on what price they were attempting to set.

Rather than focusing on what the seller intended the price to be, let us examine the possible intentions of the customer.

If they deliberately induced the pricing error, then they of course should be required to pay the correct amount. That they did so should be provable in a court of law, of course - and the burden of proof ought to be on the seller here.

If they saw the error, but reasonably assumed it was a promotional discount of some sort, the customer should not be forced to pay the "correct amount". With all the sales and discounts and loyalty programs and other nonsense, it is unreasonable to expect customers to know exactly which ones do or do not apply to them, and further, if sellers were able to force customers to pay for their own errors, there would be a huge potential for abuse (precisely why sellers are required to uphold advertized prices).

If the error is blatantly incorrect, though, I think there is cause to void the contract of sale - the customer could either return the product (at cost to the seller), or pay the difference in pricing. This would have to be a pretty egregiously incorrect price - a $500 item being sold for $0.50, for example, or an item advertized as 10% off being sold for 10% of the price. Even then, I suppose it depends on the standard deviation in prices for similar items - there are some things where even a 100% discount is common enough to not be obviously an error. And again, the burden of proof that the error was obvious to anyone with common sense lies with the seller, not the buyer.

There is, I believe, precedent for this. Contracts signed while one party was unaware of certain highly-relevant facts can be nullified, particularly when the other party deliberately withheld the information. But it is hardly a commonplace event.

You suck it up, write it off and move on

[gander666]

I am in marketing, and when you make a pricing mistake, you learn from the lesson, you fix the problem ASAP, and you deal with the lost revenue.

If you don't have enough moxie to own up to the mistake, you don't deserve to be in business.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

Except the 50% discount they received was *not* what was advertised... in fact, the products were advertised at one price, and the only ended up getting the discount at checkout time.

It falls into the exact same category as a cashier accidentally giving you too much change... except instead of a few cents that don't matter, it's measured in terms of hundreds of dollars, which do.

Delta had little choice.

[Relic]

Delta had very little choice but to swallow the losses (or face fines). The Department Of Transport has strict rules that ban price changes after a fare has been ticketed (money has changed hands, a contract for carriage is agreed).

TLDR:

From: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/EAPP_2_FAQ_01-11-2012final.pdf

--
8.
Does the prohibition on post-purchase price increases in section 399.88(a) apply in the situation where a carrier mistakenly offers an airfare due to a computer problem or human error and a consumer purchases the ticket at that fare before the carrier is able to fix the mistake?

Section 399.88(a) states that it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, or of a tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation to a consumer after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of a government-imposed tax or fee and only if the passenger is advised of a possible increase before purchasing a ticket. A purchase occurs when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. Therefore, if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.” A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
--

Well done Delta!

[Bearhouse]

Seems like both a smart and honourable move.
Pretty sure backstage the picture will be rather uglier, tho'. Rev up your resumes, Delta webserfs

You rang it up wrong, it's your loss, hoss

[gelfling]

Sorry but in the real world if your cashier rings up the wrong price it's your loss. Suck it. Suck it hard. Deeply. With commitment.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

I'm pretty sure that is only applicable if there is a human cashier involved. Online purchases are basically self-checkout systems.

Re:Simple.

[seanvaandering]

Exactly, so if I was expecting a couple dollars back in change but the machine spit out like 5 $100.00 bills, who's stopping me from walking out the door with my purchase *AND* the money. I didn't steal it from the machine - it GAVE it to me. Some righteously honest people might stop by customer service on the way out and give the store back some money, but I wouldn't - the Brick is a crooked as a company can get without being downright illegal, and to be honest - I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

It is Christmas time after all! Ho Ho Ho!!!!

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

Except if you were to knowingly take the excess money, you are basically a thief. You could try to argue that the machine just gave it to you, but guess what a judge would say to that, if it were to make it into court?

As it is, the Brick isn't even going to ship the items until they are paid for.

People are, I suppose, welcome to try to sue them or threaten to never shop there again... but it will make little difference. The Brick will just refund their money for people who don't want to pay the proper price, and that will be the end of it.

good airline PR

[gitano_dbs]

Giving away things for free its very good PR for WestJet airline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIEIvi2MuEk

"HAve we *reached* a point where..."

[doccus]

Whaat? What does the OP mean, "have we reached a point at which online retailers are expected to just swallow such costs for PR purposes, as part of doing web business ?" is an inflammatory comment.. typical /.. We never "reached" that point. We were alwayts there. It is standard practice , and may even be legislated where I live, to offer an item for the advertised rice, Once a transacion is finalised asnyways, the store can't magically just "change their minds". Are their online divisions somehow "special"?

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

The law to which you keep referring would not be applicable because this was essentially a self-checkout. It is engineered to prevent bait-and-switch schemes, which this is not.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

You may also be interested in knowing that the law to which you referred was part of Quebec's "Accurate Pricing Policy", and governs cases where the price is *HIGHER* at checkout, not lower.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

You are incorrect about point 2. I can find nothing in the policy which says that about lower prices at the register (in fact, the only thing mentioned in that regard is that the customer is *NOT* entitled to any compensation)

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

I'm not wrong.... the Brick will refund the money for customers that don't want to take advantage of the actual discount that the Brick is offering and that will be the end of it. Customers are of course entirely welcome to try to sue the Brick for this, but they won't win.

Website Checout Glitches - not new to Internet

[Summitlake]

Neither the problem nor the solutions are really new to the Internet. Honoring advertised prices is generally the law, though details could vary by state. In California in the 1970's, newspaper typos happened too. Honest businesses generally honored the prices because "false advertising" was bad business. Businesses could get around this by taking out a price correction ad immediately, and prominently posting a copy of the correction notice and corrected pricing near the sale merchandise.

Re:Simple.

[mark-t]

If this continues to be news, I guess we'll see, won't we?

It depends on whether the customer is a prick

[Douglas Goodall]

If the customer knows an error has occurs and refuses to resolve the error in good faith, they are being a prick. It is one thing is the vendor is playing bait and switch, and another if a real error occurred. In my mind it is a golden rule situation. With thew narrow profit margins that retailers have these days, a loss like this can be catastrophic. What goes around comes around. When there is an error involved and the customer insists, I think it is a form of theft.

OT: format of input

[NotQuiteReal]

Off topic, but your 16384 spaces made me laugh, but also reminded me of how irked I get every time the instructions for entering credit card data say something like "enter numbers only, no spaces or dashes" - I mean really? Just take whatever people put in and clean it up for them!