Not in the UK.

Indeed, but arguably the purpose of recognising nominal consideration is that such consideration is a demonstration of intent to create legal relations.

We're talking about a commercial deal here, so presumably if money actually changes hands there is a strong implication that a deal was intended even for nominal consideration. I'm just wondering whether the accidental 1p pricing case is so far from reasonable by the objective observer standard that a lawyer could argue it. (I don't know the answer to this, nor claim to; as I said, I'm not a lawyer, just someone who's come across some of the issues.)

Yes, yes, something about peppercorns.

It remains necessary for there to be a meeting of the minds for a contract to exist, and I still can't see how an objective observer would conclude that a merchant intended to sell expensive goods for consideration of 1p.

Except he was elected in part by presenting the case that his predecessor (and by association, a candidate from the same party) wasn't open and clear or honest with the country. He said that his administration would be the most transparent in history. And of course he hadn't been in office for week before he proved to be MORE opaque, more controlling of the media, and more comfortable simply lying his ass off than any president in recent memory. Bill Clinton's compulsive lying seems like little league by comparison.

It's Obama's own finger-wagging lecturing prior to holding office to which it makes sense to hold up his own behavior. That wasn't him being surprised by the realities of office (though, clearly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into, having never run anything in his life, before hand), this was him simply realizing that there was no need to keep up the facade once in office.

This has become a significant issue for my friends and family this holiday season, to the point that in some cases we have just walked away from the Amazon ecosystem entirely and bought elsewhere.

If you can change prices so fast that a customer can't look up something we're interested in buying, call their partner in to check it before confirming the order, and then add it to a basket, and the price change can be literally doubling the price from a good deal to a complete rip-off, then the experience of shopping with you is going to suck.

Throw in the inherent risks with any on-line purchase of stuff not turning up on time or being damaged on arrival -- both things I've heard widely reported in recent weeks in the UK, including specifically in connection with Amazon in some cases -- and going back to the High Street to buy anything you can from a bricks and mortar store is quite an attractive alternative.

If only the people going to High Street shops to browse and then getting their phones out and ordering from Amazon hadn't killed off 90% of the good shops. :-(

FYI, I don't think your description of how contract law works is correct across all of the UK. For example, consideration is treated differently in Scotland.

In any case, for a transaction literally charged at 1p, one might reasonably argue both that this is not sufficient to constitute consideration and that there was no meeting of the minds given that an objective observer would obviously not expect expensive merchandise to be sold for only 1p under these conditions.

(I'm not a lawyer, but as someone who runs businesses including on-line transactions I have spent plenty of time talking about these issues with people who are. Actual lawyers are welcome to dive in and correct me.)

The GP post didn't say anything about taking your payment. Contractually speaking, that is often a more significant act than merely showing a web page or sending an e-mail acknowledging an order.

And that sometimes makes things interesting in the case of responsible retailers who don't charge your card until they are ready to ship, because you're in a kind of limbo as a customer if you've placed an order but the merchant is delayed before sending it.

As I understand it, Amazon is generally reasonable about how it handles these situations. For example, if you have placed an order but it hasn't shipped and been charged yet, you can probably change or cancel it. But you have to watch out with less scrupulous trading partners, who will happily try to eat their cake and have it by claiming your order is final yet also claiming that have no obligation to ship it until they take the payment.

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Realise this fundamental truth, grasshopper, and you will reach enlightenment and celebrate in the glory of the smashing orangey bit.

And to make your point, you cite a highly partisan organization known for its well funded hatchet jobs?

The question isn't whether the White House told the truth about whether or not they could done something in the moment, militarily, to change matters on the ground during the attack. No, they couldn't have. Because their earlier policy decisions left that option off the table. They left that compound and our ambassador woefully under-protected on the key anniversary of a favorite Islamist attack date. Pure incompetence, of course, but nothing they could do about it once the attack started.

That's what the Democrat-led reports are concluding. It's all about trying for maximum cover for Hillary, period.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the sustained, demonstrated days of lying the White House did after the event, in a transparently lame, embarrassing attempt to prevent their narrative (in the days before an election) about Islamist terrorists being "on the run" from being seen as pure BS. Instead, they tried to explain away the death of a left-for-dead ambassador as the result of a cheesy video posted on YouTube. That is the Big Lie. Of course it all fell apart when it became evident that not even an hour had passed after the attacks before senior intelligence people were in the White House telling Obama exactly what happened (heavily armed, organized terrorists conducting a well planned attack). But know, he and his media emissaries marched out for interview after interview, for days and even weeks, and just lied their asses off - all with the election in mind, period. That's the behavior you're supporting.

Of course they have a say! But what they're trying to say is it's not cool (it's "playing for the other team") to shop around for the best tool for the job because it might be bad for their future marketing efforts and PR.

... he probably also hopes that other countries around the world will consider buying and using products and services that originate in the EU. Just so long as people in the EU can't shop around. Like he hopes others will do, and wind up spending money in France. I'm trying to think of a better word than "hypocrisy." How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?

We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.

"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday

Given the precautions I take and the checks I made at the time, including scanning the machine in question for malware using an independent, known good boot disc, that seems unlikely. It would require a firmware-level infection or a stealthy infection that could hide from multiple malware scanners, either way exhibiting no apparent symptoms before or since, to cause the clash you're suggesting.

And we're currently exploring our options for a move, due in no small part to the poor on-line banking at the current place. Sadly, it turns out that many of the alternatives are also bad one way or another, and in almost every case it takes a crazy amount of effort even to arrange a sensible discussion about possibly moving new business to a bank. Since we're talking about small businesses here, so the same people who need to deal with the banks also need to do real work that brings in revenues and pays everyone's salaries, it's a painfully slow process.