I saw in the news about this guy buying a ring for a pricing error
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/public-defende…
Just wondering if this will set a precedent, or whether this will hold up with some of the other retailers that we've seen in OzB and them cancelling orders.
It happened. This is for the appeal by Royal:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58056cf8e4b058596cba…
Thanks for posting that. Will have a read of it later.
I notice a number of previous cases being cited. I wonder if any of them relate to online sales with automatic acceptance of payment, etc.
Not to say a company should be able to get off scott free, but I think online stores are a completely different kettle of fish when it comes to offer and acceptance.
I think the jeweller let the transaction get too far or did not advertise proper sale terms and conditions on the website. That is how the big chains are allowed to get away with price errors. Should have invested in a lawyer to draft proper terms and conditions before setting up the website. Sometimes big chains honours price errors not because they have to, but because if they didn't, it would generate so much customer dissatisfaction and media attention that would affect future profits.
From their website: "If you place an order at an incorrect price, we will inform you of the error before processing the order and give you the choice to continue with the order at the correct price, or cancel it."
Not sure how long that's been up for, as it's not indexed on the Wayback Machine. I'm with Diji1 - I don't believe that this ever happened.
Well bloody hell. What an absolute A-grade c-nt this Nicholas Buttle fellow is, then.
Who even does something like this, and how has common sense failed in this case?
Thanks for finding that link. I didn't know i could do that.
Well now that I've read the 'transcript' of the email I think perhaps they shouldn't have claimed the diamond was 'unavailable' and just own that it was a pricing error from the get to? Maybe that ticked this Nicholas B guy up.
Anyway if I was the fiancee I wouldn't feel to great knowing my engagement ring has such a dispute over it.
Blindly mistrusting everyone you read because it is "on the internet" is just as bad as blindly trusting everything you read.
Journalists will look for anything juicy, and blow it out of proportion, true.From a quick read of the decision, it seems there is disagreement about how much the ring is worth.The jewellery store is claiming it is worth $34,000, the buyer is claiming other stores sell it for $US4,499.99
The internet also empowers you to look at primary sources yourself if you want to think critically, as battler just proved.
"Both sides in the case relied on contract law, not the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)."
Is this suggesting ACL would have been a different outcome?
"The director said any person on the street would know a two-carat diamond ring does not cost $1100"
I have no idea what diamond cost, I don't even know what or how big or whatever a carat is… So no, not any person off the street.
Even if they know it's a 'steal' it doesn't mean it's wrong of them to buy it at the outrageously low price.
But just like in ozb a lot of people buy stuff and then put in a comment knowing that it most likely won't be honored. no real drama if it got cancelled.
If i was looking for a ring I would've been looking at a few different places before deciding on one. I think both sides are exaggerating things a bit.
Nicholas Buttle sounds like an (profanity).
I bet his future wife is proud… if she is, they deserve each other.
what a drongo.
I mean, we've all rushed out and jumped on deals where theres a pricing error, but if it gets cancelled, most, if not all of us accept that it was too good to be true, and chalk it up to human error!
Putting a shop out of business, or at least screwing them out of 15-20k (likely actual diamond cost) because of a human error is just poor form. Bad Nicholas, bad.
Just a note that the OCD in me checks my $20 ebay listings more carefully than people manage for $30k rings. It's very easy to put automated sanity checks on human entry.
It's doubtful it even happened since you're reading it on the internet. News on the internet is largely made up because the only thing that matters to publishers is whether you click on ads or not and making up garbage about things that tugs at emotions such as money, sex, looks, health is step 1) to get you to click ads.