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)
Can this possibly be legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sale has already been completed (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 here.
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:Can this possibly be legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a leg to stand on (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:3, Interesting)
I see corporations as non entities, feel cheating them is about the same as cheating at a computer game. Though I wouldn't break any laws to cheat them, I don't feel sorry for them either.
Re:Sale has already been completed (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 waiter comped them to me, and leave a generous tip. No sneering involved.
I put it to you that if a restaurant ever went out of business because of food that was served but never paid for, the restaurant shoulders at least part of the blame for employing a waitstaff that can't keep track of an order properly. But it would have to be quite an epidemic problem for that kind of thing to happen.
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's [ed-u.com] some detail on the Argos case, and on other examples in the UK including Amazon. It would seem that the retailer was able to cancel the contract by admitting a mistake - a mistake that should have been obvious to customers as the price was not reasonable.
Seems fair to me - mistakes can happen both ways. Imagine you were writing a cheque for a big item in a hurry, and put down too many zeroes (or maybe you have trouble with writing). Would it be reasonable for the retailer to keep the extra money from the mistake? After all, the transaction is completed, and it's not the retailer's fault if the customer has difficulty writing cheques. to me, that sounds wrong.
Just as in all walks of life, there ain't such a thing as a free lunch.
Re:The wise customer (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, the customers indeed agreed to pay for one of the boxed sets...priced at $0.00.
Re:The wise customer (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: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.
Check Again... (Score:2, Interesting)
But again, IANAL. If you are, then you'd certainly be more informed about this stuff than I am.
Re:The wise customer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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:The wise customer (Score:3, Interesting)
What about people with other items in their virtual 'basket'?
Re:Sale has already been completed (Score:2, Interesting)
As a former food-service worker, you are 100% correct. You leave the difference as a tip and you don't have to worry about tipping above that number. It's called "a Win-Win". For the record, most restaurants throw more food away than they actually serve to customers. But I digress...
The court will not reward windfall (Score:2, Interesting)
In the Amazon case, the buyers (intentionally or not) are getting a windfall from the transaction. As such, they won't be rewarded by the court. Granted none of them will end up in court given the relatively small cost of a DVD set.
Since our collective "morality" if you will are defined/judged by the court, the right thing to do in this case will be to either return the DVDs at Amazon's cost or be charged for the price advertised (buy 1 get 1 free).
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Intent (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 offense at this statement:
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The wise customer {uses throwaway card numbers} (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm wondering now,,,, (with this particular card issuer/feature) if any merchant would have a way to put a second charge on?...
~
Re:will refuse the charge (Score:2, Interesting)
To those arguing the legal q: Can Amazon Blacklist (Score:2, Interesting)
It certainly wouldn't be completely effective but it would seem to fit our model of transactions better. More of a shopkeeper telling a regular customer, "We both know you purchased that item for a price that was obviously a mistake, essentially free. And now I'm asking you to make it right by agreeing to pay what the advertised price was, the price that you saw it was supposed to be when you put it in your cart. You have the right to say no, to not pay, but if you take that path you are no longer welcome to shop in my establishment. Please take your future business elsewhere."
And to those that would argue that they believed Amazon was actually giving away boxed DVD sets for $.01 I shake my head wearily.