Consumer rights $0.00 do they have to sell it to you?

Splashtash on 03/06/2014 - 16:47

So basically I was in David Jones today buying a few things and found 3 of the same items reduced to clear at $0.00 . They are usually around $10.00. I asked to buy and they refused to sell it to me but instead offered them to me at $2.00 per item. I refused and complained a fair bit. The manager said I can either sell to you for this price or take it off the floor as it was a pricing error.

What do you guys think in this situation, what are my rights…. I just really didn't like the attitude of this manager and the way she dealt with the situation. I asked for her policy and she said its online….

On a side note the manager kept us waiting a solid 20 mins as she walked past us and served other customers when already told ill be with you next.

I always thought they had to sell for the advertised price but are they allowed to take it off the floor instead of selling the item.

Ideas?

General Discussion

Comments

  • scrimshaw on 03/06/2014 - 17:01
    +41

    This falls under contract law. The TLDR is that no, the retailer has no legal obligation to sell to you. Also read this Lifehacker article..

    Why? Because the advertised price (and the items being displayed on clearance) is considered as an "invitation to treat" and the seller can back out of it and refuse to sell to you. 'They are not obliged to sell the goods to anyone who is willing to pay for them, even if additional signage such as "special offer" accompanies the display of the goods.' (Wikipedia)

    "As a general rule, a display of goods at a fixed price in a shop window or on a shelf in a self-service store is an invitation to treat and not an offer. An offer may be made by a prospective buyer. At this stage, the retailer may accept or reject that offer.
    "Similar principles would seem to apply where a supplier of goods or services indicates their availability on a website: that is, the offer would seem to come from the customer (eg. when he clicks the appropriate button) and it is then open to the supplier to accept or reject that offer."
    - Duhaime.org

    While I think bargain hunting is fun, if you take it a little too far it can cause trouble for others. I work for retail and it is difficult to convince people that advertisements are only offers to a contract and we don't need to honour them everytime because mistakes happen (e.g someone stuck a wrong price tag on something, or a customer has dislodged a price tag causing an older price tag to become visible on the shelf).

    • Splashtash on 03/06/2014 - 18:54

      Thanks for letting me know, I didnt know about this~ I just thought it was like coles and woolies.

      • 2pro4sho on 05/06/2014 - 22:19

        "Selling" implies an exchange of goods &/or services for currency. Free is not an exchange. You should have taken them for $2 which sounds like a very nice gesture.

      • lplau on 06/06/2014 - 15:46
        -1

        Different, the laws regarding that is ticketed price vs scanned price.

        Therefore if the scanned price is higher than the ticketed price, then you get the first item for free, and then all the subsequent items are charged at the ticketed price.

        I cant be bothered looking up the laws for it, but i think this law only applies to companies of a certain size and that they are using digital checkout (e.g computers).

        I think the laws also state that they have the right to take all the items off the shelf and stop selling it until they have rectified the pricing issue.

        • Ughhh on 06/06/2014 - 17:07

          Therefore if the scanned price is higher than the ticketed price, then you get the first item for free, and then all the subsequent items are charged at the ticketed price.
          I cant be bothered looking up the laws for it, but i think this law only applies to companies of a certain size and that they are using digital checkout (e.g computers).

          As far as I know, this isn't a law, its a voluntary practice/policy some supermarkets follow for the customers benefit. Dont expect other big retailers like Myer or David Jones to give you the first item for free.
          http://www.anra.com.au/Scanning%20Code%20of%20Practice%20for…

        • nexus4 on 08/06/2014 - 09:37

          That is not 'law'. It's a voluntary code of practice - they're not really obliged to do it.

    • ozdesi on 03/06/2014 - 19:10
      -7

      http://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/displaying-prices

      Displayed prices as seen on ACCC website tells a different story under 'Misleading advertising'

      • scrimshaw on 03/06/2014 - 19:27
        +10

        That relates to the advertisement of the capabilities or features of the product. E.g selling a phone that is 2G but writing 3G in it's spec list. That would be misleading.

        If it's a pricing issue, that falls under "multiple pricing" in which case, the law says either sell at the lowest price displayed or the item must be taken off the shelves until the price is corrected. Notice it also specifies catalogue, so in this case you should be looking in this section. http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/prices-receipts/price-displ…

        • ozdesi on 03/06/2014 - 22:28

          I can see that pricing is discussed in misleading advertising as well. Multiple pricing should be considered if there is more than one price however $0 marked should really be misleading ad displayed in-store. Anyway, I am not a lawyer and not related to OP. It's just my view on this.

        • Gagosta on 04/06/2014 - 08:05
          +2

          Good work Scrimshaw, you know your ACL :)

        • bjcap on 04/06/2014 - 08:55
          +4

          Ozdesi is right here. Pricing can be misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of the ACL. However there are a number of issues to consider such as whether consumers would actually be misled by a $0 price tag or would recognise it as an error.

          Scrimshaw's contract law offer and acceptance analysis is correct, but those principles do not operate in a vacuum so the ACL must also be considered. All the contract principles mean here is that there is no contract until the store accepts your purchase. But even if a contract has not yet been formed, it is unlikely that a retailer would get away with, for example, pricing everything in the store at $1 and then informing customers at the checkout that 'that was just an invitation to treat and the real price is x'.

          (Another interesting question is whether there would be a contract to 'purchase' goods for $0 at all, since in legal terms the customer has probably provided no consideration [ie given nothing in return for the goods].)

        • scrimshaw on 06/06/2014 - 20:33

          If the manager says here you can take it for free, then she is intending for the item to be a gift (donative intent) and it's not a contract anymore. It's no longer a business transaction.

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gift

    • bobbified on 03/06/2014 - 20:33

      While I don't dispute what's been written above and I don't know which particular situations it may apply to (I am no lawyer….), the first thing that comes to mind is imagining the trouble a Petrol Station might get themselves into if they advertised a price on their huge roadside price boards and then refused to sell at that price (or cheaper) once a whole line of cars came in and filled up…..

      • scrimshaw on 03/06/2014 - 21:08

        I think there's a whole different legislation and set of rules for the fuel industry. I could be wrong though.

        • FutureTech on 04/06/2014 - 08:25

          That's correct. Additional legislation is there for the fuel retail industry including putting a giant price board on the shop front and selling at that price, to avoid inconveniencing the customers.

        • Charity on 04/06/2014 - 13:53
          -3

          no. there is NO OBLIGATION for any fuel retailer to put a big price sign on the side of the road. It is there for your convenience.

      • Rel63 on 05/06/2014 - 14:32

        I worked for BP for 6yrs and company policy is that we had to charge the customer the less of whatever the price on the display board or the pump. On several occasions i had to override the console as the price had been put up before we got to the price board. With our pumps when the price was changing the pumps went into countdown for 60secs and could not be used, so anyone claiming it changed while they were pumping would be told that is impossible. I don't remember anything about having by law to have the price board but i would not be surprised if its true.

  • Herp on 03/06/2014 - 17:35
    +52

    So you raged, stood there for 20 minutes and looked like an idiot to try save $6?

    I know this is ozbargain but wow.

      • Almost Banned on 03/06/2014 - 18:00
        +1

        Surely even using your approach the saving would have been $24???

        • retiredfeline on 03/06/2014 - 19:01
          +5

          You are both right, and this is not a peace making statement. It all depends on which amount you mean by save, whether on the original cost, free instead of $30, or on the disputed amount, $6.

          Speaking for myself, in the OP's place, I would have paid $6 and ran.

        • highdealer on 04/06/2014 - 19:05
          +2

          The saving is actually $6. The item are usually around $10 but they would be happy to sell it at $2 which mean it's value is now $2. So buy trying to get it for $0.00 the OP would be saving an actual value of $6.

          Mind blow.

        • NancyCat on 05/06/2014 - 08:55
          +1

          A packet of chips at Coles normally $3, this week Coles is selling it for $2, that's a saving of $1. (3-2=1)
          An item at DJ normally $30, now $0, so that's a saving of $30 (30-0=30)
          When OP decided to 'buy' that item, the $2 didn't even exist.

        • Harold Halfprice on 05/06/2014 - 12:17
          +1

          Are you serious? How do you not understand such a simple concept?

          Yes. Originally the saving WAS $30, but he was not arguing about saving $30 he was arguing about saving $6.
          He was told the $0 price was not doable, but could be had for $2 each (2x3=6) therefore, rather than accepting that and paying $6 the OP argued the point that he should be getting them for free.

          If they were saying, no, you must pay the cost price of $30 ($10 ea) then he would be arguing over a saving of $30.

        • Jesmond on 05/06/2014 - 13:53

          NancyCat, the $10 per item is irrelevant. The store was happy to sell the items for $2 each.

        • NancyCat on 05/06/2014 - 17:20

          he was arguing about saving $6

          Yes and no. He/she was arguing about the store should honour the original reduced price (i.e. $0) and that the store shouldn't 'increase' the price at check out (after the customer has decided to buy the item). Refusing to pay and wanting to save is not exactly the same.

          OP argued the point that he should be getting them for free

          Again, yes and no. He wanted to get the items for the amount on the price tag, which happened to be $0.

          Am I correct saying 'Chips at Coles was $3, now $2, save $1'
          If so, why can't I apply the exact logic for this case?: 'Items at DJ was $30, now $0 (original reduced price), save $30'

          Given OP was so outrage at the store and told us about it, I really think in OP's mind (and my mind it seems!) it is a saving of $30. ($30 worth of whatever for nothing) Like most of you, I can't see why anyone would spend so much time and effort just to save $6. Maybe the $30 is the answer….or not…

        • Ughhh on 05/06/2014 - 17:47

          The Coles chips state is correct, but this case is slightly different. Its like Chips at Coles was $3, new regular price is $2, current sale price is $1. You're saving $1 from what you would have paid.

          The $30 price tag is irrelevant as the new price offered was $2 each. Op rejected the new $2 price, not the $30 price tag. Thus the savings is $6, not $30.

          The OP stated that this wasn't about the money btw, it was the 'principle'
          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/147028#comment-2027601

        • NancyCat on 05/06/2014 - 17:48

          $10 per item is relevant, because that's the normal price, the price before any discount. You need the normal price to work out the saving. i.e. Price before discount - Price after discount = saving

          $2 is in fact irrelevant, because the price on the original discount tag was $0. A price tag is a price tag, error or no error. And for OP, he/she 'genuinely' believe DJ is selling it for $0, not $2.

        • Ughhh on 05/06/2014 - 17:55

          Does that mean if I buy a 128mb USB for $2 would have a saving of about $98, because the original retail price was $100 (or whatever it was back in the 2004)?

        • NancyCat on 05/06/2014 - 18:12
          +1

          I do understand your point. Perhaps we are both right, just different ways of looking at the same thing. (Or perhaps I am just kidding myself)
          My point was, OP was outrage the moment DJ said no to her, she was p-off because she couldn't buy the stuff for $0. Her rage started before DJ offered her the items for $2. That's why I said the $2 was irrelevant.

    • erroorfree on 03/06/2014 - 18:09
      +6

      lol. OP probably wrote this in 5 mins +20 min wait time, so approx ~30min wasted. minimum wage is $16. 30 min wasted is $8….

      just saying…

      • Ughhh on 03/06/2014 - 18:34
        +23

        their the idiots

        *They're.

        You should've started rolling on the floor, demanding to see the big boss and threaten to call the ACCC, the fireman and the managers mother.

        • Splashtash on 03/06/2014 - 18:53
          -4

          ^ ^ maybe next time~

      • humdogg on 04/06/2014 - 10:57

        the principle that large department stores shouldn't ever make small mistakes with their pricing across literally thousands of products and if they do, consumers have a right to hold it against them to their detriment?

        I don't necessarily blame you. Heck, i might do the same but at least i would say it was for the moneyyyy! ^^

      • Harold Halfprice on 05/06/2014 - 12:28
        +2

        I used to work at safeway
        Reducing multiple items that are the same are done in one go usually, in otherwords the stickers are printed off in one go. Not individually. So there is your explanation as to how someone makes the 'same' mistake 'multiple' times - it's just one mistake.

        Furthermore, I'm not sure if this holds true for all department stores, but I know for some, you cant actually put things through the system as $0. It has to have a price, $0 isn't technically a price.

        End of the day, the person who made the mistake, who you're calling an idiot (ironically with incorrect grammar)is just a human like everyone else - have you never made a simple error? You're also kicking up a fuss and giving someone who is just doing their job and likely didnt make the mistake themselves a hard time for no reason. You're coming off as childish and immature, $6 (saving of $24) sounds more than reasonable - a price of $0 is just ridiculous.

    • nikey2k27 on 03/06/2014 - 22:57

      i got few at myer few months back then look some CK underwhere was 0.00 5 pare but i got few other item at the time. i went back looking it was all back to full prices.

      Yes they can take it off the shelf if they want to.

      • 2ndeffort on 04/06/2014 - 08:49
        +21

        Can somebody translate this please, I think it has something to do with bargain underwear but I'm not sure.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/06/2014 - 14:36
          +2

          5 pare of underwhere.

          hehe

          (jk, sorry nikey. English is a horrible language to learn!) :)

        • Tal_Shiar on 05/06/2014 - 04:44
          +1

          try latin..

  • scrimshaw on 03/06/2014 - 18:57
    +11

    Lets not punch below the belt guys, we're all ozbargainers and we love do drive a hard bargain :)

    don't bag the OP out because there are many, MANY of us here who have neg voted Dell/Lenovo/Kogan for not honouring advertised prices. Not to point specific people out but some have even suggested reporting to the ACCC and escalating into a court case. It's easy to do this on a forum and it's easy to justify doing so because you don't have to hurt anyone's feelings, or waste anyone's time.

    But in real life the situation is a bit more different and there's nothing more uncomfortable for both parties to have to resolve a 'angry customer' issue. The manager could've had handled it a bit more professionally and apologised for not being able to honour a printing mistake.

    • ozdesi on 03/06/2014 - 19:03

      You have a point but I think if OP would have bought say a TV from DJ during the same transaction then their manager would have included these items for zero price. Its just that he picked up only these zero priced items and was refused from taking them.

      • scrimshaw on 03/06/2014 - 19:09
        +3

        a TV from DJ during the same transaction then their manager would have included these items for zero price

        If the manager did so, then he would've been doing OP a favour (extra customer service). The manager however said OP could buy it for $2 dollars each, and that was her BATNA. That was her proposition, but the OP was not satisfied with the negotiation.

        Remember the $5 dollar Kogan Camera lens mug? Kogan had no legal obligations whatsoever to let the orders go through. In the end Kogan let everybody who ordered have at least 1 item, and everybody was happy. But Kogan did it knowing that it was Ozbargain at work and he didn't want to piss anybody off. He had zero legal obligations to do so though.

      • Settero on 03/06/2014 - 19:15
        +6

        why are people shoving any blame onto the manager ?
        angry customer, not listening to reason, has everything explained to them …

        • ozdesi on 03/06/2014 - 19:18

          chill out this is a retail transaction and not preschool time out.

        • Splashtash on 03/06/2014 - 20:15
          -2

          Exactly, lol…. Whose angry neway? The items I wanted had no box, very dirty n could b bought at a second hand store 4 $ 2 ….

        • one man clan on 04/06/2014 - 09:23

          But you wanted them for free?

          Just to further clarify, you didn't want them to sell them to you for $0 - you wanted to give them away for nothing.

      • Splashtash on 03/06/2014 - 20:13

        I was there doing other shopping… Bought items worth $150… But wateva

        • p1 ama on 04/06/2014 - 09:28

          Learn to spell…

        • StewBalls on 04/06/2014 - 10:30
          +4

          But woteva

          Learn to spell…

          Fiksd! :P

      • dishak on 04/06/2014 - 09:51
        +2

        I received two free TVs from dj's as they were advertised $0 on their website a couple of months ago, all I had to pay was delivery and they both came with receipts for warranty.

    • diddy50 on 05/06/2014 - 11:59

      Difference with Dell or Kogan is that they had taken the money, a contract had been formed. Where this is before a sale is made. Big difference.

  • ozdesi on 03/06/2014 - 18:59
    -1

    DJ is getting clearance idea's from Dick Smith (their electrical partners)

  • p1 ama on 03/06/2014 - 19:18
    +35

    Seriously, I hate complaining posts…

    And it sounds like you've been complaining about it a fair bit already.

    I refused and complained a fair bit.

    To address your other points,

    The manager said I can either sell to you for this price or take it off the floor as it was a pricing error. What do you guys think in this situation, what are my rights….

    What do you mean what should you do? It was a pricing error.

    You have no rights…it was a pricing error, nobody has to sell anything to you for any price. Even if it was advertised correctly at $10 (for example), they don't HAVE to sell it to you, they are allowed to refuse to sell it to you. It's their stuff. Period. No questions asked.

    I just really didn't like the attitude of this manager and the way she dealt with the situation. I asked for her policy and she said its online….

    You didn't like her attitude?…Seriously, your attitude seems a lot worse than hers. She's already said she won't sell it to you and you were complaining about it. If I were her, I wouldn't be too impressed with you either.

    I always thought they had to sell for the advertised price but are they allowed to take it off the floor instead of selling the item.

    Why are you self-entitled? It's not YOUR product, it is THEIR product and they are allowed to sell it for whatever price they want to whomever they want. You have NO right to demand that they sell it to you. Advertised prices are not a binding contract. Even if it was at the right price, they can still refuse to sell it to you on the basis of you being annoying and a pain, it's that simple. You are not entitled to the product.

    Anyway, get an attitude fix…it's people like you who give bargain hunters a bad name.

    • Harold Halfprice on 05/06/2014 - 12:37

      I used to work at safeway produce, and i absolutely hated customers like this.
      Customers who were demanding, disrespectful and believed that they're entitled to certain things.

      I'd always reduce things for customers if they asked nicely (tear in packaging, something that doesnt look as 'fresh') end of the day, i couldnt care. Safeway makes enough money if you ask me, and some of their prices on produce are ridiculous anyway!

    • erroorfree on 07/06/2014 - 11:51

      good one paulsterio! you just summarised everything i want to say when someone like him rocks up at our store! geez whats wrong with ppl these days :(

  • Ducky555 on 03/06/2014 - 19:32
    +31

    I find it really idiotic that someone would actually assume $0 is done on purpose and throws a hissy fit when he/she realises it's a pricing error.

    Even with $2 a piece it's a steal, here's an idea for you OP, stop giving people a hard time for no reason.

  • twodollah on 03/06/2014 - 21:26
    +13

    20 mins of waiting + 20 mins of complaining + public humiliation over $6…what're you doing with your life OP?!

  • zhenjie on 04/06/2014 - 00:43
    +6

    Terrible attitude!……from the OP

  • OzJD on 04/06/2014 - 04:30

    I do wonder if OP had just walked out with the items, would it be considered stealing?
    Surely they'd have no legal recourse as OP is taking an item that is marked Free.

    • Windows7forever on 04/06/2014 - 11:10

      Sure. If you take a photo of the $0 price and the product as evidence, why not?

  • 2ndeffort on 04/06/2014 - 08:55
    +1

    Scrimshaw's original answer at the top is still the most accurate in the thread. Prices are an 'invitation to treat' and the seller is within their rights to refuse to sell at the cash register. Similarly you are within your rights to make a different offer at the counter (haggle).

    It is exactly the same as if you advertise something on Gumtree and a dodgy person that you suspect is trying to scam you offers to pay full price. You are under no obligation to sell to them, you are within your rights to tell them no and refuse their offer.

  • PcisT on 04/06/2014 - 10:31

    OP needs to read up Invitation to Treat.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

  • uggugg on 04/06/2014 - 15:57
    +1

    Should have haggled it down to $1 per item and then flash out the ING Orange Everyday card to get another 15 cents off.

    • terlalu on 05/06/2014 - 15:24

      ^^ underrated post

  • redlover on 04/06/2014 - 16:19

    Not everyone knew about Law. even the simple one. OP was trying to find out something he/she did not know about. No one is idiot. if you cant say something nice then better shut up. No need to be so critical to others.

    • p1 ama on 04/06/2014 - 16:25

      It's not even about the law, it's common sense.

      Nobody has to sell you anything. It's not that hard to understand. It is up to the discretion of the OWNER who they wish to sell their item to and for what price.

      You can't come into a store and force them to sell anything to you, even if the price displayed is correct. You don't have that right.

      Either way, it sounds like OP was acting like an idiot about it. Who stands in the store and complains when they've already been refused…only an idiot.

      • StewBalls on 04/06/2014 - 16:30
        +2

        Who stands in the store and complains when they've already been refused…only an idiot.

        Refusal doesn't necessarily mean the customer is in the wrong though. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've been in the right but still been denied what I've been asking for.

        Occasionally, the only thing that will get you a win is plain old-fashioned stubbornness! ;)

        That said, redlover has a point; you guys continuing to harp on about the OP's mistake almost 24hrs after it was acknowledged is pretty poor form, Paul.

      • garetz on 05/06/2014 - 05:42
        -1

        Actually when buying things in most companies these days, you are not dealing with an owner, you are dealing with an employee. The owners are usually shareholders.

        If they use a system that is flawed and spits out incorrect prices, that isnt the customers problem, its the company and their system that is at fault. Why should a customer arbitrarily be expected to make some kind of common sense judgement call, when its not their responsibility or a reasonable expectation to do so. If an item scans for $0, then it should be free, as thats the price its coming up as.

        Just like if an item is priced at a certain level, and you are overcharged for it, you can get the item for free and a full refund. That is the companies fault, not the consumer.

  • DEvok on 04/06/2014 - 21:16

    Three words" Get over it"

    There was a similar situation many years ago and I still remember that when the PS1 was around, this was at woollies townhall, there was a table with a cleaance price sign, Only the PS1 was in it. A customer found the ps2 in that table, that customer argued tried to get that console for $2, And Obviously she didnt get it.
    It was placed there either intentional or accidental.

    Retail stores have the rights to sell nor sell the item, it's entirely up to them.

    There are times in which customers that deliberately place items in the wrong area or re-sticker price tags just to get it cheaper. It's common, that why retail shops are not so lenient.
    If they refuse just move on, better than wasting your youth and others people's time which just leads no where at the end.

  • Nutrino on 05/06/2014 - 07:49
    +1

    Lol, i know what the assistants were thinking of you when they were serving you.
    @#$%&@# @#$#&.

  • Cheeper on 05/06/2014 - 13:04

    Teach the retailer a lesson and go an buy the $30 items for $2 somewhere else. :-)

  • Rel63 on 05/06/2014 - 15:10
    -6

    I think this quote below from the ACCC (same link as in the early comments) covers this issue. The product price was misrepresented and therefore illegal and if they are unable or unwilling to sell at the price it was marked at then it should have been removed from sale. I would suggest that the op bringing it to the register to purchase was too late for the "removal of sale" option. The "error" in pricing is covered in the last sentence. They intended to put the correct price but did not. It is the responsibility of the business to mark any sale-able items with the correct price.

    "Misleading advertising

    It is illegal for a business to make claims to customers about its goods or services—including claims about price—that are incorrect or likely to create a false impression. This includes advertisements or statements in any media (e.g. print, radio, television or online) and any claim made by a person representing your business.

    Intention is irrelevant. You may breach the law even if you thought the statement was correct when you made it."

    • one man clan on 05/06/2014 - 17:05

      Cool story but that's got nothing to do with it

      • Rel63 on 09/06/2014 - 18:28

        How does this have nothing to do with it? It has everything to do with it.

        "It is illegal to make claims to customers about its goods —including claims about price—that are incorrect or likely to create a false impression. Intention is irrelevant. "

        How is putting the incorrect price ($0.00) on a tag attached to a product not misleading if the price they were charging was $10?

        It is the responsibility of the business to ensure all price labels, signs etc are correct.

        The fact that the manager offered to sell the items for $2 each shows they have discretion when it comes to changing the price. The best course of action in this case would have been to give them to the customer for the labeled price (OP has stated she purchased other items so this should not be a problem really) or state that as they are incorrectly labeled they will be removed from sale. The good will from the former option would be worth more than the $6 that was suggested, the latter option would have taken the whole issue away.

        Way to go Ozbargin, why so many negged comments for giving opinions? Just because i and many others don't agree that the OP has unrealistic expectations or is an idiot?

  • LauralHardy on 05/06/2014 - 17:31
    +1

    Invitation to treat is one thing but if the customer agrees to buy and the retailer agrees to sell it becomes offer and acceptance creates a valid contract.

    If the retailer doesn't like the price of the 'invitation to treat' they usually try crying pricing error at this point, but that only really works if the retailer can prove that the error must have been obvious to the consumer, the fact that the price may not be 'fair' is of no consequence to the buyer and has no bearing on the status of the contract. If the item is marked as 'sale' then it is very difficult for the retailer to establish that the customer must have known that the price was in error as retailers sometimes give ridiculous money off offers.

    So why do I say this and why is this useful?

    Consider, that you purchase something online marked as a sale item and the retailer processes payment. What we have here is invitation to treat, offer, acceptance and consideration all the elements for a valid contract. There may be some weasel words in the websites T&C's but the contract should still stand.

    I expect members to tell me that I'm talking s**t so maybe one day I'll post the David Jones docket with a $895 discount I got on a coffee machine because I jumped on a website offer and stood my ground and insisted that they gave me the item described, I didn't even have to threaten them I rocked up to collect it, spoke to the customer service staff and manager, she sent it to H/O, I gave them a few days to think about it, contacted them again and they released the stock to me. [DJ’s T&C’s don’t include anything about pricing errors btw]

    My advice in situations like this is stand your ground and remain pleasant.

    • p1 ama on 05/06/2014 - 17:52

      They are not legally obliged to do what they did, but they did so because they were nice. Plain and simple.

      Let's say you advertise an item on Gumtree for $50, even if someone offers to buy it off you for $50, you don't have to sell it for $50. It's the same with a shop.

      They don't have to sell it to anyone, despite what that someone might be willing to offer. It is within their rights to refuse.

      • LauralHardy on 05/06/2014 - 18:01

        Once they have taken your money they have sold it to you, simple contract law.

        Legal aid makes it crystal clear that standard contract law applies to internet transactions

        Does the general law of contract apply to E contracts?

        Yes, the standard legal principles of contract law apply to internet transactions such as online shopping and banking.

        http://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/InformationAboutTheLaw/WorkMon…

        • p1 ama on 05/06/2014 - 18:58
          +1

          How is that even relevant to this? Nobody has taken any money here.

        • juventino on 06/06/2014 - 00:35

          first, no money has changed hands as it is $0.

          even if the amount is greater than zero for example $100, the money hasn't actually passed hand. Most retailers utilize the 'pre authorized' transaction or 'authorized' hold where money is actually hold by the banks. Thus a contract is 'technically' not yet completed as merchants hasn't collected their funds yet.

          The authorisation hold might last a few days which is why sometimes your purchase transaction turns up at a later date

        • LauralHardy on 06/06/2014 - 01:48
          -1

          1) paulsterio - Sure you can call relevence if you want once you are proved to be wrong, and you are wrong.

          2) juventino - You clearly have no idea about contract law. Contracts can be formed without money physically changing hands clearly many contracts don't include money at all. On many occasions payment and / or delivery is agreed to be at a later date possibly months away from the agreement of the contract, it is still a valid contract.

          What is necessary is offer, acceptance, consideration; by agreeing to the terms and clicking 'I agree' you agree to send the money, they agree to send the goods that forms the contract, if either side does not perform their undertaking then they have breeched the contract and can be liable for penalties.

          But specifically in my case I checked with my bank and the money was claimed by the merchant not placed on hold.

        • juventino on 06/06/2014 - 05:26

          laural, you need to dig a little deeper into the concept of offer, acceptance and consideration

          1. You saw the product online advertised by the merchant. That is 'invitation to treat'
          2. You made them an 'unconditional offer' and communicated your offer by completing the buying process.
          3. You agreed to the incorporation of terms and conditions stipulated in the website before you complete the purchase.
          4. Merchant reviewed your 'unconditional offer' and if the terms and conditions are not followed through, they can refuse your 'unconditional offer'. Thus there is no contract.

          even if the money has been claimed by the merchant and contract is 'supposedly' valid, there is this thing called exclusion clause or limited liability clause which allows the merchant to void the contract and not be liable for penalties. If these clauses are triggered for some reasons such as pricing error, inadequate stock, merchants can refuse the 'acceptance'part , thus a contract is not formed.

          When you click "I agree', you agreed to the terms and conditions set out by them, not the other way around.

          When you complete the buying process, you completed your part of the offer. The merchant merely acknowledged your offer and would come back with their (non) acceptance.

          It works both ways, just like us, the customers having 'the cooling off period' after we signed a valid contract (most notably in real estate). You break the contract within cooling off period, you are liable for nothing.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join