In the U.S., for the most part, advertisements, catalogues, and price lists are not considered actual contractual offers but only as invitations to negotiate. It is a common practice for advertisers to include "prices subject to change" with such advertising. A merchant who prints a really low price in error may decide to sell at that price (i.e customer service) but is not legally required to do so. Advertisements are not contracts.
The reasoning behind this is simple. If, for example, an advertisement was considered a true contractual offer, and the seller only had, say, one item for sale, and 25 people accepted this advertising offer, the seller would be in breach for the remaining 24 resulting contracts. Obviously, this could lead to problems and cash payouts for breach.
As with most law, there are exceptions where U.S. courts have chosen to rule otherwise such as the amusing case of Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapopolis Surplus Store where a tenacious shopper actually took a case to the Minnesota Supreme Court over a cheap fur coat and won! (He obviously had money and time to burn.)
IANAL, but I just finished a couple of grueling semesters of biz law, and mainly what I learned was unless you have the money and the time to fight something in court, your rights are limited or nonexistant, in the U.S. at least.
Your milage may vary, of course, in NZ or further parts down under. But, as much of American law (especially in re: contracts) is based on British Common Law, there may more than a few similarities.
And be prepared to go to court to defend those rights if you actually have them!
Slashdot Mirror
In the U.S., for the most part, advertisements, catalogues, and price lists are not considered actual contractual offers but only as invitations to negotiate. It is a common practice for advertisers to include "prices subject to change" with such advertising. A merchant who prints a really low price in error may decide to sell at that price (i.e customer service) but is not legally required to do so. Advertisements are not contracts.
The reasoning behind this is simple. If, for example, an advertisement was considered a true contractual offer, and the seller only had, say, one item for sale, and 25 people accepted this advertising offer, the seller would be in breach for the remaining 24 resulting contracts. Obviously, this could lead to problems and cash payouts for breach.
As with most law, there are exceptions where U.S. courts have chosen to rule otherwise such as the amusing case of Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapopolis Surplus Store where a tenacious shopper actually took a case to the Minnesota Supreme Court over a cheap fur coat and won! (He obviously had money and time to burn.)
IANAL, but I just finished a couple of grueling semesters of biz law, and mainly what I learned was unless you have the money and the time to fight something in court, your rights are limited or nonexistant, in the U.S. at least.
Your milage may vary, of course, in NZ or further parts down under. But, as much of American law (especially in re: contracts) is based on British Common Law, there may more than a few similarities.
And be prepared to go to court to defend those rights if you actually have them!