Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right
-
MediaMarkt baalt flink: klanten kochten peperdure Apple iMac voor 2,19 euro
Door een prijsfout bij MediaMarkt kochten afgelopen week verschillende mensen een Apple iMac-computer voor 2,19 euro in plaats van 2190 euro: een ontzettend goede deal voor een computer van normaal ruim 2000 euro. MediaMarkt is niet blij en wil dat klanten de computers terugsturen of het...
A few days ago, the Netherlands branch of Media Markt accidentally sold iMacs in its web store for €2.19 instead of €2190. This got pulled really quickly once they realised their mistake, of course, and the law here says that when a price is clearly mistaken, a vendor is not required to sell the item for that price. Since €2.19 is not a realistic price for a high-end computer, there would be no problem with Media Markt telling customers that they’re not going to deliver them for that price.
However … a few dozen people actually got their iMacs delivered within a day or two, for all of two euros and nineteen cents a piece.
Media Markt got in touch with them and most have apparently agree to either return the computer or pay the difference, but one, who bought three for his company and so saved about €6500, refuses. He feels that Media Markt, by both confirming the order via emails and delivering the computers, has explicitly agreed to the sale for this price. A legal firm agrees with him, so this could end up in court.
-
@Gurth Not the first time, not the last. The smartass should expect having to pay way more than €6500 due to legal costs. They have exactly zero chance to win.
-
@Gąska Automation, like real estate, is a risk free market!
-
@Gurth said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Since €2.19 is not a realistic price for a high-end computer
I thought they were selling Macs.
-
@Gurth A long time ago I ordered a similarly mispriced monitor. Unsurprisingly, the site didn't honor the deal; I honestly wasn't expecting them to do so, but thought it was worth a shot. About a year later I got an email about a class action settlement, and a few months after that I received a credit of $5 on their site. We sure showed them for that typo!
-
I remember ordering some item that was a price mistake, getting an emails saying the order was cancelled and then receiving all 3 of said items. Never heard anything more about it.
I've also heard of newegg sending cases of eepcs to people who have ordered one. Not sure how that shook out.
I think once you receive the order, you are under no obligation to return it. There are some laws on the books in the US about having no responsibility to ship items back that you didn't order.
I also once booked a hotel room for $1, and later got an email saying it was a price mistake and asking me to book at a higher price. I said I was happy with the price I had and will not be rebooking. I think at some point the other side went quite, and I assumed the room was cancelled, but at some point I got a call asking me why I didn't show up and if I would be coming the next day (It was a multiday booking).
-
@Gąska said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
They have exactly zero chance to win.
No idea about the Netherlands, but in the US it really depends on the State. A lot of states have laws that require the stores to sell as advertised. Most (all?) of these laws were created to stop malicious pricing and baiting tactics. So an argument of it being only a pricing error won't fly.
At the end of the day they honored the sale and shipped the product initially. So that counts as a sale in my book and I would guess across most of the US as well.
-
@Dragoon said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Gąska said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
They have exactly zero chance to win.
No idea about the Netherlands, but in the US it really depends on the State. A lot of states have laws that require the stores to sell as advertised. Most (all?) of these laws were created to stop malicious pricing and baiting tactics. So an argument of it being only a pricing error won't fly.
At the end of the day they honored the sale and shipped the product initially. So that counts as a sale in my book and I would guess across most of the US as well.
Shops tend to let it go in cases like this, or otherwise spin it positively for marketing reasons. Demanding money after you've already shipped doesn't tend to do well in the papers, quite apart from legal rights.
I recall a case a few years ago where Hema erroneously sold pies for free on the web shop, which went viral on the socials. Hema found out before ship and cancelled the orders, but they put them up in their brick and mortar stores for free for one day instead (one per customer, obviously).
A €2000 laptop is a different affair from a €5 pie though.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Gurth said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Since €2.19 is not a realistic price for a high-end computer
I thought they were selling Macs.
-
@Dragoon said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
No idea about the Netherlands, but in the US it really depends on the State. A lot of states have laws that require the stores to sell as advertised. Most (all?) of these laws were created to stop malicious pricing and baiting tactics. So an argument of it being only a pricing error won't fly.
That does fly here if it’s an obvious mistake, as I explained earlier in this thread, but we also have laws that try to prevent drawing customers into the shop by essentially false pricing.
At the end of the day they honored the sale and shipped the product initially. So that counts as a sale in my book and I would guess across most of the US as well.
Well … in an update, the largest/most influential consumer protection organisation in this country, the Consumentenbond, has called on the couple of people who refuse to return or pay the difference for the computers they got, to do so because they’re obviously trying to take advantage of an honest mistake by a retailer.
-
In UK law, having something offered at a specific price doesn't constitute a requirement that it be sold at that price, but as soon as you make an offer to buy it at that price and the merchant accepts (like taking it to the till and paying the money asked) it's an agreed contract of exchange of those goods for that money.
-
@Gąska said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Gurth Not the first time, not the last. The smartass should expect having to pay way more than €6500 due to legal costs. They have exactly zero chance to win.
Not really. In Germany the law would be on his side. Basically, there are two steps to a contract - proposal and fulfillment.
Putting the good into your shopping cart and submitting an order is part of the "proposal". It's the same as walking into a shop, handing something over at the checkout and stating: "I want to buy this!" Up to this point it's not a big issue if you then state that you will not fulfill the proposed contract.
As soon as the trader actually accepts your money then contract may have been fulfilled and the goods are now in your possession (some shops explicitly state that contract fulfillment only happens upon delivery of the goods for this very reason! Otherwise the default is "Fulfillment upon payment"). Now the trader has a problem and will need to start a legal process to cancel the contract - but it's still comparatively easy at this point.
But if you actually deliver the goods then you're SOL. At this point you can only hope that the recipient is in a good mood.Basically, you are allowed to step back from the contract until you accept or hand over money (if you have a good reason. A mere "but I did not know that it was worth more!" is not a good reason. Data entry errors, the goods being damaged or lost, those are good reasons.)
-
@Rhywden said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Basically, there are two steps to a contract - proposal and fulfillment.
But that's really only the basics. In cases like this you get into the domain of concepts like the "obvious error", where "the consumer can only maliciously assume that the vendor intended to sell at that price", so that a judge might rule that the proposal has never really existed.
-
@Grunnen said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Rhywden said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Basically, there are two steps to a contract - proposal and fulfillment.
But that's really only the basics. In cases like this you get into the domain of concepts like the "obvious error", where "the consumer can only maliciously assume that the vendor intended to sell at that price", so that a judge might rule that the proposal has never really existed.
There's actual case law for this. It is as I stated: Up until the moment of delivery you have the chance of correcting an error on your part. After that it gets a lot more complicated. Your "obvious errors" work up until delivery.
It's only reasonable, though: We have to have a cutoff point, after all, or contract law would essentially be meaningless. Pacta sunt servanda.
-
@Rhywden In the Netherlands there is actual case law from 2018 that is different: a woman ordered a diamond necklace on-line for 402 rather than 40200 euro and succesfully collected her order in person in the store. The court ruled that the sales agreement has never existed at all and that, therefore, the woman had to return the necklace or pay the full price.
-
@Grunnen That opens a whole can of worms, though. After all, any company could then claim an "obvious error" in some way and retroactively void inconvenient contracts.
In Germany they go for the: "You have until this point to do your due diligence. After that you have to live with the consequences."
-
@Rhywden said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
It's only reasonable, though: We have to have a cutoff point, after all, or contract law would essentially be meaningless. Pacta sunt servanda.
In Poland, the cutoff point is when there's no obvious error. And yes, it is very vague. All Polish law is. On purpose. I don't agree that it's a good thing, but it is what it is, and some people like it.
Edit: and there are no precedents in Polish legal system. Judges aren't bound by previous rulings.
-
@Gąska said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Edit: and there are no precedents in Polish legal system. Judges aren't bound by previous rulings.
I assume that's the same as in other civil law systems: Precedent does exist as a guideline, but the judge isn't bound to it the way he is in common law. Netherlands and Germany also have civil law systems.
-
@PleegWat said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
<insert Pirates of Caribbean meme here>Precedent does exist as a guideline
-
@Dragoon said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
At the end of the day they honored the sale and shipped the product initially. So that counts as a sale in my book and I would guess across most of the US as well.
Looking into this further, it does appear that delivery of the product is a key part of the transaction and that by doing so the seller has consented to the sale (from what I can tell about the US, might vary a little by state). AIUI, from this point the only recourse the seller has is to sue the buyer.
-
@PleegWat said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
I assume that's the same as in other civil law systems: Precedent does exist as a guideline, but the judge isn't bound to it the way he is in common law. Netherlands and Germany also have civil law systems.
IANAL, but in the Netherlands, precedence is a source of law. Not as important a source as laws passed by parliament etc., nor as important a source as it is in common-law countries, but a source of law nonetheless. Judges cannot just ignore another court’s rulings on similar matters.
-
@Gurth
They can. They typically aren't litteraly bound by lower or parallel courts. Even if other cases are brought up judges can deem them non relevant. Rulings of higher courts might be a different can of worms.
-
@Luhmann said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
Even if other cases are brought up judges can deem them non relevant.
That’s what I meant: judges cannot just ignore another court’s rulings. They don’t automatically need to always go along with it, but they also can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist.
-
@Dragoon said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Dragoon said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
At the end of the day they honored the sale and shipped the product initially. So that counts as a sale in my book and I would guess across most of the US as well.
Looking into this further, it does appear that delivery of the product is a key part of the transaction and that by doing so the seller has consented to the sale (from what I can tell about the US, might vary a little by state). AIUI, from this point the only recourse the seller has is to sue the buyer.
Possession is nine tenth of the law, after all.
-
@Zenith said in Macs are expensive? Not if you time it right:
@Gąska Automation, like real estate, is a risk free market!
I wonder if there's a cloud service to automate lawsuits yet.
Good, bad, evil ideas, arrows.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity on one hand, you get more lawyering. On the other, you get less lawyers...
