Amazon Adjusts Prices After Sales Error 756
An anonymous reader writes "On December 23, Amazon advertised a 'buy one get one free' sale on DVD box-sets, but apparently did not test the promotion before going live. When anyone placed two box-sets in their cart, the website gave a double discount — so the 'grand total' shown (before order submission) was $0.00 or some very small amount. Despite terms stating that Amazon checks order prices before shipping, Amazon shipped a large number of these orders. Five days later (December 28), after orders had been received and presumably opened, Amazon emailed customers advising them to return the box-sets unopened or their credit cards would be charged an additional amount (more threads). Starting yesterday, Amazon has been (re)charging credit cards, often without authorization. On Amazon's side, they didn't advertise any double discount, and the free or nearly-free box-sets must have cost them a mint. But with Amazon continually giving unadvertised discounts that seem to be errors, is 'return the merchandise or be charged' the new way that price glitches will be handled?"
The wise customer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Informative)
will refuse the charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon committing a charge after the transaction has completed should be considered fraud and treated as such.
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let's get back to the issue. People saw on various threads on the net "Amazon Price Mistake!" logged on to Amazon and started ordering away, hoping their orders will get through. Probably the ebayers were the fist to take advantage of this. Now it was obvious to them that it was an error in the final cost calculation, as the promo rules were clear. There were even threads about the ethics of this on the various fora such as DVD Talk.
Amazon does send many of these orders (my guess is many thousands) and when they realize it they apologise and they ask to pay return shipping to get them back or to charge the right amount. Then people start acusing Amazon.
Wow. Just wow. I think because the general rule is to hate big corporations, we applaud people who try to steal from them? Yes, I would consider it stealing if you try to take advantage of a price mistake (especially if you do it to make money off ebay) AND you complain when the merchant wants to correct it. Yes, if the big corporation does not loose a lot of money, they will not bother you about it (consider it something like advertisment costs) and you would be fine with your conscience. But the fact that Amazon (with the amazing IMHO CS record) asks this, it meens that way too many people took advantage of this (I would bet most not for personal use) that they have to cut back their losses.
Now, IANAL, but I have read many times on slashdot about cases such as the one with the animal (I forgot, was it cow or horse or sth?) that was cheap for meat but was not sterile after all so the court annuled the low price contract. In the animal case the buyer did not even know more than the seller - it was just luck - while with the Amazon situation the buyers were aware of the mistake on the seller part, something which makes the case simpler to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
When it's online I think certain rules apply, and "send it back or be charged" is definately justified.
It doesn't matter if it's justified or not. It's most likely a violation of their agreement with the credit card processing company and it's certainly a violation of the customer. If I agree to a $100 invoice and approve the charge on my card they can't later change that to $200 because they screwed up.
All that said, I have a lot of respect for Amazon and have done a lot of business with them. It's pretty low to take advantage of their mistake like this. But it was their mistake and that doesn't mean that they get to change the rules and start charging peoples cards after the fact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The buyer (customers) clearly knew that this deal was too good and an error. Any reasonable person would think so. In this case, the buyer is at fault for knowingly taking advantage of the seller (Amazon) and the seller's unintended sale at this discount. Any judge would find in favor of the seller in this situation. You can use the law to protect yourself but you can't use it to inflict undue harm on to others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for them and they only have to worry about policing a single storefront.
They really should be expected to be able to manage their own business.
If they are unable or unwilling to catch their own "mistakes" before
their customers do then they should have to eat the loss.
Also, it is not a given that those that benefit from the error are acting
in bad faith. Not everyone lingers on Slashdot or Digg all day waiting for
this stuff to come up.
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Doubtful. The FTC considers an order "properly completed" when payment is made based on the invoice price. At that point, no unilateral changes can be made - it's a binding contract accepted by both sides. (Mail order companies are free to make price changes and correct mistakes *before* a card is charged and the order shipped, but not after.)
I'm not exactly sure how or when orders with an invoice price of "0.00" are considered properly completed, but I would guess at the time the order ships. That would constitute acceptance of the contract. Obviously, any order shipped based on some "small amount" (as mentioned in the article summary) would be properly completed at the time of the original charge.
I don't see that legally Amazon has much of a leg to stand on here. You can't assume every customer was knowingly out to rip off Amazon, and even if they were, it was Amazon's mistake in not catching their own pricing error before completing these orders. It would be one thing if they put a stop on all the orders before shipping and emailed everybody that they'd need to adjust the prices - that happens all the time, and is the legal way to fix mistakes - but that's not what happened here. Amazon legally accepted these orders as correct and shipped the merchandise. At that point, the legal onus is no longer on the customer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's UCC, not FTC (Score:5, Informative)
I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. Do not rely on this, as it is not legal advice, but merely another
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
If I charge my client a price for an item or service, and they stand up to their end of our bargin, I must stand up for my end... period.
If I accidentally give them a quote with no shipping costs on it, for example... well, I eat shipping on that order.
If I quote them a price on a special order item, then go to order it and realize the price I had was old, well, that's my fault too, not my customers. We made a deal, and they lived up to their end of it.
Going back after the fact to revise the terms of your deal is not only fraudulent, but opens the door to huge amount of intentional fraud. A contract would have no legitamacy at all... "whups, sorry, I messed up, let's rewrite the deal".
I'm sorry, if you cannot be bothered to keep your own systems in order, you pay the price of failure. Amazon has no right and should have no expectation whatsoever that a single one of those customers would or should return what they purchased, fairly, for a price Amazon told them was good. Period.
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is irrelevant. Actually, the deal was $X was to be charged to your credit card for items, Y & Z. A deal is very specific. Specific products at a certain price at a certain time under certain conditions.
Think about rebates. The price they advertise is not the price you pay at the register. That is the difference between what you pay at your register and what you get as a check from the rebate at a ce
Say this were brick-and mortar (Score:5, Interesting)
I know what I'd do. Even though I hate big, faceless corporations, I'd pay. I wouldn't even think about it. That's just the way I was raised, I guess. Would I do the same thing on Amazon? I'd like to say yes, because I think the morality is pretty clear, but I'm actually unsure of what I would have done in this situation. The real difference is looking somone in the face and knowing, "hey, this person will probably get shit if I do this and their boss finds out." Without that immediate, person to person contact, the urge to put one over on a big corporation when no one will get hurt is pretty tempting.
Re:Say this were brick-and mortar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:4, Insightful)
As would I. I have little sympathy for the people who jumped on this mistake and tried to milk it. But there are people involved here who did not do this, as well. People who just tried to buy stuff, perhaps didn't notice that they had been charged less than they should have been, and then went on to spend the money they would have spent on the DVDs on other stuff. DVDs are luxury items, many of us have quite limited budgets to spend on such things.
AND you complain when the merchant wants to correct it.
The merchant is perfectly entitle to correct it, IMO. Here's how they should go about doing this:
How this is different from what Amazon are doing:
Now, IANAL, but I have read many times on slashdot about cases such as the one with the animal (I forgot, was it cow or horse or sth?) that was cheap for meat but was not sterile after all so the court annuled the low price contract.
You're probably talking about Sherwood v Walker [pitt.edu]. Note this text:
The vendor decided to cancel the contract before taking payment, not afterwards. This makes a substantial difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I walk into a store and pick up a item. I take it to the register. It scans at the wrong price. The cashier doesn't notice. He hands me a receipt, bags my item and wished me a good day. I leave the store. The transaction is complete.
Personally, If I got outside and realized I hadn't paid for something, I would return to the store and hand over the money due. But could the store, upon realizing their fuckup, unilaterally decide to place a second charge on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon will eat the cost if anyone refuses to pay or return. I've dealt with amazon before and twice they've sent me the wrong item and I just refused to return it at my expense and Amazon told me to just keep it with their compliments. That is to say: they refunded the purchase price AND let me keep the item.
They can't correct a mistake by billing your credit card without
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how does your example work out for a site which offers something for free? Are you suggesting that after the fact, they should be able to charge you for the promotion? Although we have testimony from people that the box sets probably weren't adver
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
While many people have a problem with Amazon, I have had nothing but the best experiences dealing with them. Their customer service has been top notch the one time I have needed them, they ship fast, and they ship for free.
While it sucks that a mistake was made, I think these customers are being a bit greedy expecting to get "something for nothing." While Amazon represents the "big corporation" and people love to screw with big companies (and some probably deserve it), I think its morally wrong for people to expect to not have to pay for the merchandise received.
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL but this is certainly what a customer is likely to argue in court. The seller has the responsibility to make sure that the invoice total is correct. No excuses. It is very clear that the final 'accept' button is an offer of a contract.
Its a losing proposition for Amazon here. They are going to get crucified by chargebacks for the unauthorized purchases.
The mailings telling people to return the merchandise would appear to risk falling into the category of demanding payment for unsolicited goods. The customer agreed to pay for the goods but for the stated price.
Just fire the middle manager who you have bungling the remediation on this, eat the ten million or so and move on.
Re:The wise customer (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer: I've no idea what the position is in the US (and whether it varies State by State). But safe to say your post is not necessarily correct.
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
You go to WalMart and buy a sleeping bag that was mispriced at $500. (perhaps some toddler moved the sticker from some other product.) Perhaps you didn't even see the sticker, but you know from having looked previously that the price is around $50 bucks. However the clerk at the counter mindlessly rings you up for $500.00 instead of $50. And without paying attention you sign your cc slip and happily and walk out of the store. A few days later you realize you've paid $500, a clear mistake, and you take the bag and receipt back to Walmart and ask for your money back.
If walmart were to say, "its a completed sale, its got a $500 sticker on it, its wasn't advertised as less anywhere else in the store the day you bought it, so no refunds; you were clearly appraised of the price at checkout, and you even signed your credit card slip" you'd probably throw a SCREAMING FIT.
Why is it ok to screw amazon, but a dirty sin if you get screwed?
Fwiw, I think amazon probably doesn't have a much of a legal leg to stand on in reclaiming the funds. However, they are indisputably in the right morally, and anyone that deliberately took advantage of this is morally bankrupt, doubly so if they aren't willing to make amends.
Reminds of a law & order episode, where some girl agreed to be a surrogate mother for a childless couple in exchage for cash, and then acts depressed and threatens to have abortion in order to extract additional money and gifts from the couple... turned out there's nothing actually illegal about that either...
I guess its ok then.
Sociopaths.
(PS The "you" in the analagies above refers to the people who took advantage of amazon, not the parent poster.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The stupid company (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The wise customer (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it could be argued that Jeff Bezos was the second gunman on the grassy knoll but that doesn't mean it's actually true.
In reality, though, every shopping cart that I've ever used or developed has a step, after shipping and tax is calculated, where the user is asked to confirm their purchase and authorize the sale. A similar step occurs in offline-processing, where the full amount is shown on the screen and you are asked to confirm, by either swiping your card and entering your pin, or by signing the receipt.
THIS is the step where you agree to the price and accept the terms. You couldn't possible agree and confirm a price before this step because it wouldn't include shipping/taxes.
And while IANAL, I believe that at this step, Amazon is responsible for their own mistake. They showed the user a price. The user was given a chance to say confirm his order and authorize charges. He did so.
This is a contract, it's been digitally signed.
Amazon is trying to make it so their mistake costs them nothing. That's certainly a nice fuzzy warm thing to think about, but in the real world, there is a price to pay for mistakes.
Re: (Score:3)
However, Amazon shipped the goods, and so executed the contract at the price on the invoice. At this point they have no case, and no right to charge the customers.
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
A price was agreed upon by both parties. If anyone is not being moral it's the person at Amazon who has decided to change the terms of the deal after the transaction has been completed.
The fact that the business failed because it was automated is a fault in theer business practice. It is not the fault of the customers. The customer can NOT know what the business has done or what deals the business has made, or what special promotions the business is running, or a myriad of other things.
If you got a notice right now saying you were undercharged 10,000 dollars for your car, would you pay?
Re:The wise customer (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if I only paid $0.00 for it in the first place, I might expect to be asked to return the car or pay a fair price later.
I think the problem with Amazon's deal isn't really any different than walking into a store, taking something to the cashier, having the cashier just put it in a bag and leaving without paying. Even if the cashier says "just go ahead and take it", that doesn't make it right.
Taking advantage of a broken automated system isn't any more moral than stealing if you know the price isn't appropriate.
If an ATM gave you money and didn't deduct it from your account, would you tell the bank?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Funny)
It would even more like if Amazon.com advertised a 'buy one get one free' promo on box sets, but their shopping cart screwed up and didn't charge anything at all, and then several days later Amazon.com tried to buyers what they should have charged in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why not think of something that's actually likely to happen?
Re:The wise customer (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazon did get something: goodwill, which is a valuable commodity in business.
Incidentally, this used to happen all the time at a store where I lived in London. 30 minutes before closing they would drastically cut the price of their bakery goods, vegetables and other food that would spoil, sometimes to token vaules like 5 pence. The problem was, their billing system processed 'buy one get one free' by subtracting the value of the second item from the total of the bill. A friend of mine once managed to select the right combination of goods so that he became in credit at the till (because all of the second 'free' items were credited back at their original price) and was sent to pick up more goods because they wouldn't give him cash out of the drawer. They didn't change the system after that - we would always look for a few reduced goods with BOGOF to knock some money off the total. One thing I'm sure of: all of those were valid transactions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right thing to do might be for beneficiaries of this mistake to pay a correct, reasonable price for the items received, so that they, and all other customers, don't end up paying more in the future. But that would require thinking and acting like a non-exploitative member
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about people with other items in their virtual 'basket'?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After that, I considered it a fair fine for the time they asked if I wanted a mini statement and then charged me $3 for the service (there was not a word about it being a charge in the offer).
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Another scenario: you order the DVD box sets from Amazon but a few weeks later (after the return window), you realize that you got charged too much for the purchase. Amazon refuses to refund the overcharge. Is Amazon right or wrong? After all, at the end of the transaction, you agreed to a price for the delivered goods.
It works both ways; if you expect Amazon (or any business or individual) to correct an error after the transaction that works in your favor, then you don't have any room to complain when the entity tries to correct an error after the fact in their favor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If just before clicking "Proceed with payment", the deal is $X, then you'll have to pay $X. This story is not on "what users were charged with", but on "what users agreed to pay on checkout".
Re:The wise customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, lovely lovely contract law, which, when push comes to shove, really just says that a contract means what the two parties thought it means when they agreed to the contract.
If an American company and a British guy were to enter into a contract in which the American company were to provide boots to the British guy and the American company knew full well that the British guy thinks boots are those storage spaces at the back of automobiles, the American company would get in trouble if they shipped the guy a box of calf-high footwear.
Oh, but the contract says boots! Tough luck! Not quite. Amazingly, common sense would prevail.
If Amazon is offering a buy one, get one free sale and the customer knows that Amazon is offering a buy one, get one free sale then if the customer acts upon that sale, it doesn't matter so much what the contract (bill of sale) says, it MEANS that the customer is going to buy one and then get one free. There was simply an honest mistake in the contract. What becomes of such a thing?
1) If the customer knows the contract is a mistake and goes ahead with the intention of profiting, it borders on fraud.
2) If the customer doesn't realize that it is a mistake ("ooh I must be the lucky 100th buyer, I get both for free!"), then the contract is simply invalid. As you know, a contract is only valid once both sides receive appropriate consideration! Paying nothing or nearly nothing for $50+ worth of DVDs is not appropriate consideration.
Amazon is acting like a good corporation, assuming you are an honest person and asking you to either return the unopened DVDs to make it like the contract never happened or to pay the price they intended to charge you to make the contract a valid contract.
Consumer protection laws are not likely to come into play. First, they protect consumers acting in good faith. If you were to challenge credit card charges or cancel a card to avoid paying, who is going to believe you are acting in good faith? Certainly not a judge. Second, if you were to act like a proper citizen and take the high road while still maintaining that you should be entitled to the whole thing for free, Amazon is not going to pursue it very long. They have better things to do; they'll just refund your money and offer an apology.
Sale has already been completed (Score:4, Insightful)
If a guy sells his car while drunk for a small amount of money, or gambles it away while drunk, it's his fault entirely not the buyers.
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Informative)
This in particular is a clear case of Unjust Enrichment [wikipedia.org].
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is. Unjust Enrichment would be if the customer agreed to pay $50, but Amazon only charged them $5. Then the customer would be obligated to pay the remaining $45 because both parties agreed on the price of $50.
In this case however, Amazon meant to charge $50, but only charged the customers $0.01. The customers didn't agree to $50, they agreed to $0.01. Since, at the time, both parties agreed to the price of $0.01, it doesn't matter if Amazon changes their mind after the fact, the deal's done.
Amazon's pissed they lost a lot of money, but they're not allowed to retroactively charge people extra. I think their only option is to treat it as a sunk cost and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But to be honest, I just don't see a problem here. The customer knew there was an error but still ordered anyway. Even if he didn't know, one would reasonably suspect that he would want to be charged for one of the box sets (Knowing how these promotions work, possibly the higher priced box set)
So while Amazaon is being a dick about it, I don't see why there is even a problem her
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Insightful)
In your world, there is no honor system. You'd sneer and leave the resaurant without paying what you owe. You'd pat yourself on the back while the restaurant owner struggles to pay his workers and keep the doors open.
In my example, there is a moral choice on the table. I made it one wa and you made it the other way. Who is the better man?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:4, Insightful)
Be honest and frank anyway.
---Mother Teresa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also the restaurant is a place that cooks and serves babies. If you're going to paint a ridiculously dark scenario, you have to go All The Way, man.
If I'm at a restaurant and the check arrives with some of the items I ordered absent from that total, I am probably going to assume that the waite
Most analogies are wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine asking the waiter how much the Roast duck and bottle costs, he states $9 and you order that and pay the bill when you leave, two weeks later receive a bill for $90 because the bill should have been $99. Would you have ordered it if would not have clearly stated $9?
With ordering online, the final price minus all discounts, shipping and taxes is posted on the final page that states click here to finalize your order. That is the point where you make an agreement and agree w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I will say is that you are mixing morality and legality here. Stealing is a legal issue, not a moral one. From a legal standpoint, Amazon probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. From a moral standpoint, the people who intentionally took advantage of the mistake are slime.
However, I take great of
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Funny)
Kintanon
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They realize this isn't how the world is, true... but they also realize it's where the world needs to be if humans want to survive as a species....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's [ed-u.com] some detail on the Argos case, and on other examples
Fraud protection anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
What proof do we have that this was an honest mistake? They could have done this intentionally. Not that I think they really did, but is it even legal for them to pull this bait and switch? They can't charge your card without your authorization, right? RIGHT?!
Re:Fraud protection anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
No. You can't ask somebody to pay one price for something and then charge them something else, even if you've previously told them the terms will be what you later change them back to be. This is called the "last shot" rule: the last exchange between vendor and purchaser determines what's in a contract: if it contradicts anything agreed previously, then the previous agreement is cancelled.
They can't charge your card without your authorization, right? RIGHT?!
Right. So you talk to your bank and ask them to charge it back. The bank will ask a few question and do so, the money appearing back in your account after ~7 days in my experience. At the other end, Amazon will receive a number of charges from their bank for the privelege of dealing with the mess. Serves 'em right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is true. After you receive your monthly invoice from VISA (or sooner if you use online banking), you simply have to pick up the phone and report a fraudulent charge. VISA will then "investigate" and chargeback Amazon.
However, I don't know how it is in the US, but here any company is free to not accept certain credit cards even if they are valid.
Re:Fraud protection anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, except you're forgetting that fraud protection laws also protect the merchant.
Not in this case, they don't. There is no legal way Amazon can charge these consumers: they quoted a price (whether mistakenly or intentionally, it doesn't matter, the price was quoted on their web site where anybody could see it), took payment, and delivered the goods. A contract was formed, and now Amazon are expecting the customers to honour a different one.
Tell me, what exact law did any of those customers break? Because the law Amazon are breaking is quite clear: by instructing their card acquirer to take additional payments from their customers, they are declaring that they have been authorized by the customer to do so, which is clearly untrue. They are therefore obtaining money by deception.
If the customer is legally in the wrong, then Amazon are free to pursue compensation in court. Trying to obtain it directly by themselves, however, is not a legally justifiable action.
Can this possibly be legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can this possibly be legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can this possibly be legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You walk into Best Buy, select your merchandise then take it to a checkout counter. The clerk charges you $0.00 and the receipt reflects that. You exit the store and on the way to your car the manager approaches you with the error.
Realistically, what's going to happen next?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You go into a store and purchase two DVDs, you go through the till and you pay full price for both DVDs, the reciept states as such. You then leave the store, go home, watch the DVDs and then notice that the same shop had a "2 for 1" discount on those two DVDs.
I would guess that when you return for the one DVD discount, they would reply that you can only query the charges before leaving the store, not after (just like the sign in the store says).
All of that seems fair, so why
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's $5.00 for something that usually costs $30.00, and that merchant is known for having discounts they don't always publicize, I'd refuse -- I could have reasonably believed that the discount was intentional at the time of purchase, and all the elements nec
It's their fault. (Score:2)
It's their fault so customers shouldn't be made to pay. However, Amazon would be remiss if they didn't try to people's sense of fair play.
Not new at all... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not new at all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, they were VERY nice and gave $50 to each customer that they inconvenienced with this.
The customer was not 'responsible' for the mistake. The customers still had ample opportunity to cancel the order completely as it was still a pre-order and nothing had been shipped and very little time had passed.
Amazon did something completely different. They shipped a product to a person and THEN claimed the person owed them more money. Last I checked, it was illegal to ship something to someone for free and then charge them for it. It used to be a mail scam. (The difference there being that the customer didn't ask for it at all, though.) Amazon is clearly in the wrong every time they charge someone's card that didn't agree to it. BestBuy didn't do that.
Is that even legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it this way: You go to Asda (or Wal-Mart or whatever) and buy something. If the supermarket decided that there was an error in the price, or found that their till has miscalculated some promotion in some way, could they come to your house and demand more money or the goods back? No, they couldn't.
As an interesting side point, the supermarket near me will effectively pay you to take home food from the reductions counter when their tills apply a promotional discount greater than the price the food has been reduced to! I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on if they demanded it back after the sale had completed.
Many similar cases exist (Score:5, Informative)
It is easy to suspect that Amazon did this on purpose.
In Sweden politicians are talking about writing a law that will basically give the cunsumers the right to keep whatever is sent to them, even if they never ordered it.
I sometimes order things from my Cable-TV/Internet-provider on their webpage. The conditions are often very unclear - to the point I suspect they are vague on purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's like trying to demand a letter or the value
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Many similar cases exist (Score:4, Informative)
IF the item was unsolicted. The people who got two box sets for free solicited their products.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Later you talk about Sweden, so perhaps you aren't posting from the US. Here that would be illegal. If someone mails you something you didn't ask for, its yours free. That's a federal law.
Don't use your "real" credit card. (Score:5, Informative)
Poor Amazon... (Score:3, Informative)
Be Merciless Amazon! Crush Your PUNY Customers!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone really expect to pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Zero dollars?
In Amazon's defense, they advertised "buy one, get one free". So everyone who bought one expected initially to be charged for at least on of the box sets. Some were probably pleasantly surprised to see 0.00 on the invoice, but I don't think any reasonable person expected Amazon to give them two box sets for free.
It would be different if Amazon had advertised "buy one, get one free", and then charged customers for both boxed sets when they ordered two. But they didn't. Instead, Amazon is holding their customers and themselves to the terms of the original advertised offer - buy one, get one free. I fail to see how anyone could have seen the zero dollar charge as the honest price - or how they expected to get something for free from Amazon when their ad clearly indicated otherwise.
Really, how could you not know that a charge of $0.00 wasn't a mistake?
This is not as black and white as some would think (Score:3, Insightful)
The second group seems to simply be saying "Screw 'em. The law says it's a done deal and no takesies-backsies."
Both of these responses are actually equally valid, taken away from their context, and both seem to be rooted in a sense of what is "fair". Which of the two is the usefully "correct" answer given the context has yet to be addressed, so I'll address it.
People should be treated as you'd like them to treat you. It's as simple as that. Good people make moral decisions. They do what's "right". Anyone arguing this? Of course not. The problem is that this is not the context in which this transaction took place. Amazon is not a person. Amazon is a corporation. This does not automatically mean one should be looking to screw them over, so follow along carefully.
Corporations, unlike people, do not make moral decisions. They make decisions based on profit margins and a curious thing called "stockholder interest", which, while it does involve people, has little to nothing to do with morality. It's simply a fact that even if someone in the corporation dared to make a decision where the moral response differs from the profitable solution by any significant degree, the organization would consider the un-profitable moral response to be incorrect (and probably fire that person if it was a large enough difference). Corporations are amoral, which is different from "immoral" so if you're having trouble understanding this, use the intertubes to look up the meanings of the words.
Taking the context of the situation into account, the customers, from a purely moral standpoint shouldn't have made the deal they did. However, you can pretty much bank on the fact that the corporation would not be making this same distinction. Corporations, while enjoying the benefits of being declared a "business entity" can be counted on to go with the letter of the law and no further in a situation involving assets of almost any kind, including money, and for this reason these customers should treat Amazon the same way Amazon would treat them. By the letter of the law, these customers owe Amazon no more money than what they were charged, Amazon would be breaking the law by charging their credit cards after the fact, and the customers should fight them every step of the way because that's what Amazon would do if the roles were reversed, simply because it would be profitable for Amazon to do so, and seldom does the issue of the morality of a business decision ever become challenged. When a non-entity which has no moral incentive is granted rights by law to be an "entity" with the same rights as a person--by acting in an amoral fashion they have to accept that their customers will behave with the exact same level of self-interest if the corporation being given these rights is to be anything approaching fair. Otherwise, ethically speaking, a corporation is no more than a paper facade for large groups of people to make decisions and interact with other people without being hindered by moral judgements. Fail to understand this, and the corporations will eventually gobble up everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the ME society. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the ME society. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right and wrong aren't about assigning blame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the ME society. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make it a lesson learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they did, and maybe it was just an honest thing that didn't get properly QA'd -- bugs *do* happen in software, as most people here can attest since we write and maintain it. But, testing is their responsibility before they have customers using it. If Amazon made the mistake, then Amazon can eat the cost of it. I agree with with you on that point.
Unless you have any evidence to suggest that outsourced Indian programmers who can't add are responsible for this, that just seems way over the top. Sad to see that racial intolerance will get you a +5 insightful mod on Slashdot nowadays.
For all you know the guy who fscked this up is a white American protestant living in Buttfuck Idaho -- possibly a whole team of them. Basically saying it's the fault of a bunch of illiterate Indians is pointless.
Cheers