Another Two Cents wrote:
The OP DID have "the slightest clue" - that is why he was so quick to jump on the deal. It happens with airlines all the time. They offer flights for a few dollars (see flyertalk.com - I think that is the name) and people jump in and buy them before the airlines realize their mistake.
Perhaps I was not clear. Yes the OP had a good idea about the value of the product, that is precisely why he should realize the offer was not bona fide.
you have every legal right to pursue this matter in court and lose. you have no contract and case law has enforced time and again that unless explicitly stated beforehand (typically in a contract), vendors have the right to stop a transaction before its completed. its the same idea at work if you had bought the product and refused to accept it when it was shipped, demanding a refund. minus shipping, the company would be legally obligated to honor your refusal to complete the transaction and provide the refund. you also must honor the company's refusal to complete the transaction. so you're entitled to pursue the matter, but all you're entitled to receive is your money back.
on simply rational matters: stop being a douche running around trying to swindle people. there's a difference between a good deal and an obvious mistake. you're making corporate lawyers look honorable
Yes, and perhaps I wasn't clear. His only possible avenue for recovery would have been their fraud, which he neither suspected or relied upon to his detriment, nor was any apparent.
He didn't rely on an intentional fraudlent misrepresentation and they never intended to sell at that price, something which he well knew.
Rarely have I seen so many people talking so definitively about something they no nothing about.
Guys this is pre-law level contracts. Contract = offer + acceptance. My contracts law is rusty - the seller MAY have a defense (i.e. the disclaimer that someone posted above), but since when is it a defense to say that the offer was "obviously" too good to be true?
mundus vult decipi wrote:
Rarely have I seen so many people talking so definitively about something they no nothing about.
Too bad you don't know how to spell "know."
Here is one snippet from their Terms of Use (and I have cut out the retailer's name with 123456, but I am sure you can find it).
Their policy:
No Responsibility To Sell Mispriced Products Or Services. 123456.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any orders placed for products and/or services listed at an incorrect price, rebate or refund, or containing any other incorrect information or typographical errors. 123456.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any such orders whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged. If your credit card has already been charged for the purchase and your order is canceled, 123456.com shall immediately issue a credit to your credit card account in the amount of the charge.
I have an e-mail saying that the incorrect item was listed. This is not a typographical error, as everything in the product I purchased was correct. It was technically not a pricing error either, as they are not saying the price was wrong, but rather the item was wrong. How can the entire product be wrong information?
Then they have a separate marketplace policy, which includes their own policy, plus other things. This is their policy for sellers:
Shipment. 123456.com will notify you of order placement via your seller interface on the Marketplace and/or via email. You agree to ship items ordered by buyers within 48 hours following such notification of the order. You shall provide notice of shipment to 123456.com through your seller interface on the Marketplace, and you hereby represent and warrant that you will only provide notification of shipment following your actual shipment of the product. If 123456.com does not receive such shipment notification within the 48 hour shipment window, 123456.com may cancel such order, and 123456.com shall have no liability to you with respect to such cancellation, including without limitation, for any shipment made in reliance on the order or notification of such order. You agree that 123456.com has no obligation to ship any product you sell to a buyer through your use of the Marketplace. You agree to pay the shipping charges in full for any product that you ship in connection with an order made by a buyer. You agree that legal ownership and all risk of loss of your items remains with you until the buyer physically receives the items from you. You agree that you will ship only the product purchased by the buyer and will not include any additional products, materials or information not purchased by the buyer. You agree to ship in accordance with the then-current Seller's Guidelines, and agree that 123456.com is obligated to pay to you standard shipping rates in accordance with the then-current Seller's Guidelines solely for products that are actually shipped, delivered and accepted by the buyer.
My problem is I clearly received notification that the item had shipped. Within 48 hours, that remained unchanged. The seller terms of use clearly state if it says they shipped it, they shipped it. And it also says that legal ownership and risks of loss remains with the seller until the buyer receives the item. So, they say they shipped it and I have not yet received it, and now they say they don't have it. It seems like they have virtually lost this item.
Just because it says it shipped doesn't mean it actually did ship. A lot of this stuff is automated, and an automatic shipping notice will be sent after x period of time, whether or not it actually took place. The only way you can know if it actually has is if you have a tracking number and you can see where it has been scanned.
Almost saved money wrote:
I was looking for electronics online from a major retailer, and found what appeared to be a once-in-a-lifetime deal. I found a high-end piece of electronic equipment marked down from $29,900 to $130. Yes, a $28,000+ savings.
So, I placed an order for a few of these (one for me and a few of my friends). The first order I placed had a status of "shipped." The next order I placed wound up getting canceled. None actually shipped.
The product was sold by a legit company through a major online retailer's marketplace. Apparently, the product ad placed by the company for a different product was matched with to the description of the $29,900 product. This company doesn't even carry the expensive product. Therefore, it appears to be the major retailer's fault.
I have screencaps of everything, including PDF's of the sales receipt showing I purchased the stated expensive merchandise for $129. On the major retailer's website, my order status now reads that it was canceled at my request (which clearly I did not do).
Do I have any legal right to pursue this further (ie, they have to provide me with the product I paid for as it was advertised, or an equivalent?) It is not my fault that they had something listed incorrectly and let the transaction proceed, and I do have full evidence of the transaction.
Just because someone can sell you something at a fixed price doesn't mean they have to. They made a mistake and voided the sale. Get a grip you idiot. You must be black. Do you tip?
Go on the Wetmore Letter to Editor thread. Lots of legal advice on there.
I agree. This is basic contract question--offer + acceptance = contract. They breached. But the disclaimer posted above gets them off the hook.
By the way this advice isn't intended to be relied upon by anyone in their right mind (or wrong mind, for that matter). I'm a complete idiot and you are a complete idiot if you rely upon it. In fact, I'm going to tell you right now that everything that I have ever said (except this one statement) is incorrect. Just flat out wrong.
And also I don't claim any legal knowledge, appropriate licnesing, or anything else.
Next case.
I think you should bring this situation to Judge Judy's attention.
Why don't you just contact a local attorney and offer to pay on a commission basis? If they get you your product" for the price you agreed online then you pay them some % of what you saved. All this talking on here just indicates to me that you are not really serious about getting this resolved in your favor.
Almost saved money wrote:
Here is one snippet from their Terms of Use (and I have cut out the retailer's name with 123456, but I am sure you can find it).
Yes, I did find it.
Their policy:
No Responsibility To Sell Mispriced Products Or Services. 123456.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any orders placed for products and/or services listed at an incorrect price, rebate or refund, or containing any other incorrect information or typographical errors. 123456.com shall have the right to refuse or cancel any such orders whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged. If your credit card has already been charged for the purchase and your order is canceled, 123456.com shall immediately issue a credit to your credit card account in the amount of the charge.
I have an e-mail saying that the incorrect item was listed. This is not a typographical error, as everything in the product I purchased was correct. It was technically not a pricing error either, as they are not saying the price was wrong, but rather the item was wrong. How can the entire product be wrong information?
Why are you focusing on 'typographical error'?
It is obvious (even you acknowledge it) that this was a case of "incorrect price" and/or "incorrect information".
If you re-read that legal paragraph you posted, you'll see that they are well within their rights to rectify a mistake they made that even to you, was obviously a mistake.
Another Two Cents wrote:
Guys this is pre-law level contracts. Contract = offer + acceptance. My contracts law is rusty - the seller MAY have a defense (i.e. the disclaimer that someone posted above), but since when is it a defense to say that the offer was "obviously" too good to be true?
You and I enter into a contract. I will sell you the moon for $20. The contract was never valid as you had no REASONABLE expectation I could fulfill the terms. You can take me to court, but you will be laughed out. This case is similar but to a much lessor degree. The OP should not have had expected the terms to be credible, items costing $25K do not sell for $130.00. He can take it to court, he will lose.
At best he gets some small dollar amount from the seller given to him for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense of defending a silly lawsuit.
random a hole wrote:
Another Two Cents wrote:Guys this is pre-law level contracts. Contract = offer + acceptance. My contracts law is rusty - the seller MAY have a defense (i.e. the disclaimer that someone posted above), but since when is it a defense to say that the offer was "obviously" too good to be true?
You and I enter into a contract. I will sell you the moon for $20. The contract was never valid as you had no REASONABLE expectation I could fulfill the terms. You can take me to court, but you will be laughed out. This case is similar but to a much lessor degree. The OP should not have had expected the terms to be credible, items costing $25K do not sell for $130.00. He can take it to court, he will lose.
At best he gets some small dollar amount from the seller given to him for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense of defending a silly lawsuit.
Man up already and admit that Bush did this. Kanye West told the Today show that he regrets his infamous “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” comment, something the former president has cited, during his recent book tour, as a low point in his tenure. In a taped interview shown live to Bush, West said, “I would say of George Bush, in my moment of frustration, I didn’t have the grounds to call him a racist. But I believe that in a situation of high emotion like that, we as human beings don’t always choose the right words.” Bush responded, “I appreciate that. It wasn’t just Kanye West who was talking like that during Katrina, I cited him as an example, I cited others as an example as well. You know, I appreciate that.”
But West didn’t at all appreciate how the whole exchange came to pass. Yesterday, after the taping, West Tweeted, “let me tell you how they did me at the Today show.” He went on to say, “I went up there to express how I was empathetic to Bush because I labeled him a racist and years later I got labeled as a racist. … I don’t mess with Matt Lauer or the Today Show … and that’s a very nice way for me to put it! … HE TRIED TO FORCE MY ANSWERS. IT WAS VERY BRUTAL AND I CAME THERE WITH ONLY POSITIVE INTENT.” I apologize for all the evil I have done to people on this board. I am a hack and a jackass. Pardon my zaniness. It happens to use skinny asian bitches in Des Moines sometimes.
random a hole wrote:
Another Two Cents wrote:Guys this is pre-law level contracts. Contract = offer + acceptance. My contracts law is rusty - the seller MAY have a defense (i.e. the disclaimer that someone posted above), but since when is it a defense to say that the offer was "obviously" too good to be true?
You and I enter into a contract. I will sell you the moon for $20. The contract was never valid as you had no REASONABLE expectation I could fulfill the terms. You can take me to court, but you will be laughed out. This case is similar but to a much lessor degree. The OP should not have had expected the terms to be credible, items costing $25K do not sell for $130.00. He can take it to court, he will lose.
At best he gets some small dollar amount from the seller given to him for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense of defending a silly lawsuit.
You are inventing the "reasonable expectation" requirement. However, if you are this confident in your analysis, I will make a deal with you: I will send a contract to Wejo to purchase your house for $100. If you don't have a house we can make it your car. Wejo can forward the contract to you. After that I will sue to enforce the contract. Deal?
You are changing the context.
If my house is FSBO and I put an add in the paper. I mistakenly list the house at $200 instead of $200K. You will not get my house for $200 because you did not have any reasonable belief this offer was valid.
Yes, you and I can enter a proper real estate contract to sell my house to you for $100. In that contract the terms ($100) will be listed several times, there will be numerous checks (title search, tax basis, etc), at every step they will question the $100 selling price, we will then both re-affirm that selling price (giving you witnesses along with the documantation should I back out). Yes, I can sell my house for $100 to you, I am choosing not to do so.
First off, I do not fit any of the stereotypes anybody is saying, and that has nothing to do with anything.
As to why I posted here, it is because I am looking how to proceed with this. If I pursued it with the company I purchased from, would I have any right whatsoever to insist that I receive the item or a comparable one? If there is indication I can follow through with this, I will. If all opinions point to not being able to do so (which the majority seem to be), I will not pursue it.
I realize sometimes things go out of stock and an item cannot be shipped. In this case, it was listed as in stock, and even went so far as to say it was shipped. The Marketplace terms clearly indicate a company cannot tell me it has shipped until it has actually shipped - automated or not, those are the rules stipulated by the terms of service. So, I guess that is a second mistake now (in addition to the incorrect product being advertised.)
It is just a slippery slope from there. What would be a reasonable expectation? Would $20,000 be reasonable? $10,000? Would they be able to advertise amazing Black Friday or Cyber Monday deals and then just take them away claiming them as a mistake? What if I had an opportunity to buy one discounted from an online auction, purchased this one instead (with indications it had shipped), and as a result missed the other discounted one in an auction? Or if I had promised this to somebody as a gift (and as noted originally, I did purchase some for others), now I cannot fulfill that. I am not talking about trying to get money for mental anguish, but wanted to see if I had any chance at being able to receive this product as advertised.
Well... I'm not a contracts expert... and you do sound like you know what you are talking about... so I'll reluctantly concede. You're wrong about one thing though - you're not an A hole. You actually come across a lot more reasonable than most people on LRC.