Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Amazon.com - Amazing Deals Or Massive F-ups?  
User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3237 posts, RR: 9
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1754 times:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...oto/ref=sv_p_1/102-1102725-0541760

Canon PowerShot SD800 IS 7.1MP Camera with 3.8x Wide Angle Image-Stabilized Optical Zoom - $41
Canon PowerShot Pro Series S3 IS 6MP with 12x Image Stabilized Zoom - $41

etc. etc.

What kind of a deal is this???


Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

You may have seen a glitch. I'm showing the prices as:

Canon PowerShot SD800

List Price: $349.99
Price: $219.99
You Save: $130.00 (37%)

Canon PowerShot Pro Series S3

List Price: $449.99
Price: $301.99
You Save: $148.00 (33%)


Must've been a temporary F-up that got fixed quickly...


User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3428 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 1):

No, he was right, when i clicked the link about 15mins ago, the $41 deal was on the very top.


User currently offlineJpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

If one buys a product during a 'f-up', I sure hope they would suck up and honor it. I'd be pretty pissed off if my credit card got charged and then was told I would have to pay another $250 for their mistake.

[Edited 2007-06-22 07:44:17]

User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Odd - I get the same prices as BCAInfoSys


No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 2):
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 1):

No, he was right, when i clicked the link about 15mins ago, the $41 deal was on the very top.



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 2):
Odd - I get the same prices as BCAInfoSys

As a computer programmer, these are the type of "quirk" events that I see every day in my job. I can totally see this from a programmer/developer's point of view. I bet you $20 that the inconsistent prices are the result of a scenario the developer(s) didn't anticipate. Some quirk in the logic that shows different results at different times or for different users. (Maybe the location has something to do with it? Does Amazon redirect to different systems based on the country of origin?) System Testing may suck; but it really is a crucial, painful necessity of the job.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3237 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

The "good thing" for Amazon is that they never charge the card until the product is packed and ready to ship. So it's quite likely that any "orders" confirmed at $41 will never ship and will never be charged.

I doubt if Amazon will honor these orders, but if they do, I'll be one happy camper Big grin



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5157 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 5):
As a computer programmer, these are the type of "quirk" events that I see every day in my job. I can totally see this from a programmer/developer's point of view. I bet you $20 that the inconsistent prices are the result of a scenario the developer(s) didn't anticipate. Some quirk in the logic that shows different results at different times or for different users. (Maybe the location has something to do with it? Does Amazon redirect to different systems based on the country of origin?) System Testing may suck; but it really is a crucial, painful necessity of the job.

it is very unlikely to be a programming error, more likely to be an input error. Someone entered $41 instead of $410, or updated the wrong product



That'll teach you
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 1):
You may have seen a glitch. I'm showing the prices as:



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 2):
No, he was right, when i clicked the link about 15mins ago, the $41 deal was on the very top.



Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 4):
Odd - I get the same prices as BCAInfoSys

You are all seeing correctly - Amazon displays different prices to different visitors, and displays the same price on your return via use of your cookie.


User currently offlineAlaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 905 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

Quoting Jpax (Reply 3):
If one buys a product during a 'f-up', I sure hope they would suck up and honor it. I'd be pretty pissed off if my credit card got charged and then was told I would have to pay another $250 for their mistake.

if you buy it and it says a certain price then they have to follow through with that price, they can't charge you more for it. it is Federal Law that what they advertise a product for is what they have to sell it for. It was their fault that they didn't set the right price. Just think of it like this: Amazon has a sale and they sell some product for $100, but then they decide that really they are going to charge you $130 for it because "thats what we meant to put down as the price" well they could really rip off a hell of a lot of people doing that, so when they make a mistake they have to follow through with the price for the people who baught it at that price, they can change it so that all future purchases pay the right price, but what has been sold is sold.

So I think that a few people may have gotten lucky, or Im sure they could start to threaten Amazon with a lawyer and I bet you Amazon would give it to you for that $41 that you legally purchased it at, because whats a lost $200 to them?

The old "im calling my lawyer" bit really does work. We got over $7,000 back from UA when they screwed around with us and it wasn't until we threatened them with our lawyer did they say "the money will be accredited back to your account within the next two billing statments" ... Then they had the nerve to call us up and ask why we left their Corporate mileage program.  Yeah sure
~Cheers-
~~Kyle H.



to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3237 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting Alaskaqantas (Reply 9):
So I think that a few people may have gotten lucky, or Im sure they could start to threaten Amazon with a lawyer and I bet you Amazon would give it to you for that $41 that you legally purchased it at, because whats a lost $200 to them?


No such luck  Sad

Quote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Amazon.com Payments [mailto:payments-messages@amazon.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:52 PM
To: nimish
Cc: payments-mail@amazon.com
Subject: Your Amazon.com order 102-3353087-1921736 has been canceled

Greetings from Amazon.com,

We're sorry, but the following order from GizmosForLife has been canceled.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

==================================================
ORDER DETAILS
==================================================

1 of Canon PowerShot SD800 IS 7.1MP Digital Elph Camera with 3.8x Wide
Angle Image-Stabilized Optical Zoom
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HAOVGM)

Your credit card was not charged for the order. To view your transaction
status online, please visit:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/css/history/view.html

Thank you for shopping at Amazon.com.

Amazon.com



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

Quoting Nimish (Thread starter):
Canon PowerShot SD800 IS 7.1MP Camera with 3.8x Wide Angle Image-Stabilized Optical Zoom - $41
Canon PowerShot Pro Series S3 IS 6MP with 12x Image Stabilized Zoom - $41

Jesus! I wouldn't mind an S3 IS for $41! Too late anyway... Plus my S2 IS kicks ass and I got it for free (graduation gift)! Big grin

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 7):

it is very unlikely to be a programming error, more likely to be an input error. Someone entered $41 instead of $410, or updated the wrong product

What happened that one time I heard UA had advertised $24 roundtrip SFO-CDG fares (I think in 2001) on its website? I don't know why or how it happened, but I do remember UA honored those who took advantage of the fares.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineAlaskaqantas From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 905 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting Nimish (Reply 10):
No such luck

E-mail them back. That is False Advertising, which is a crime.
be polite but shove it at them.
~Cheers-
~~Kyle H.



to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

Quoting Alaskaqantas (Reply 9):
if you buy it and it says a certain price then they have to follow through with that price, they can't charge you more for it. it is Federal Law that what they advertise a product for is what they have to sell it for.

Only if a contract exists - and by common law, that is only at the point where money is taken for the purchase.

Amazon has full rights to refuse sale for any reason up to the moment they actually receive money from you.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 13):
Only if a contract exists - and by common law, that is only at the point where money is taken for the purchase.

By what authority are you basing that statement on? In my opinion you're simply wrong.

At US common law a contract is formed upon the reaching of an agreement (the meeting of the minds) by the parties. By general Uniform Commerical Code (UCC) principles a contract for the sale of good that is silent as to payment terms implies payment upon delivery. The UCC is the framework upon which the law of 49 of 50 US states is based for the sale of goods.

Therefore, a contract can be formed pre-shipment and a breach occur when the vendor fails to ship. Of course since the duty to pay arises simultaneously with the duty to ship, the general rule of contract construction is that the duty that can be fulfilled instantaneously (i.e. the payment by credit card) goes first. As such, the vendor has no obligation to ship unless a tender of payment is made.

If I as the buyer tender payment by providing a valid credit card at the time of the contract formation and the vendors refuses to ship he is (a) in breach of the contract or (b) must argue that a contract was not formed under the doctrine of mistake or (c) look to the contract that was formed to see if it contains any exculpatory language that would allow them to get off the hook.

The doctrine of mistake is generally a difficult argument to win because it usually requires mutual mistake by both parties such that a meeting of the minds never occured. The most famous case is the Peerless (sp? maybe Pearless) case where there where two ships named Peerless sailing from Australia one a couple of weeks before the other. The parties each were referring to a different vessel and both were reasonable in their position. When the error was discovered the contract was voided based on the doctrine of mistake. Here, since Amazon is advertising these cameras in a special section of its website designed to draw attention; loss leaders are a commonly used marketing tool and there is no indication that the buyer knew of the mistake (or at least the burden would be on Amazon to establish this), I believe a valid enforceable contract would be formed if someone clicked and completed the order provided a valid credit card and Amazon refused to ship (at least under US law).

This is no different than if I were to go into a Ferrari dealership, place an order for a car that took 6 months to deliver, paid a deposit or otherwise obligate myself to pay for the car upon delivery and the car never be delivered. The contract was formed upon the order whether or not I paid for it in full at the time of the order or not. If the dealership obtained the car and I then decided I didn't want to pay for it, they could sue me for breach because the contract was formed at the time of order.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3237 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

I have sent them an email asking them why the order was canceled and added in a bit about "false advertising" right there.

Other people I know who ordered did not have their orders canceled as yet! Surprising...



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):

By what authority are you basing that statement on? In my opinion you're simply wrong.

By what authority? By the fact that I have a lawyer sat in the next office that handles our contracts with the US.

The fact that an item has a price by it makes it legally an invitation to treat, or in the US an invitation to bargain, not an offer to contract - thus a contract does not exist until it has been accepted by both parties, and by the terms of use of Amazons website, that is when they commit to taking payment, which isnt until they actual take the payment from whatever source you have offered.

This has been upheld by many court cases in both the US and UK and is the legal framework by which retail companies work.


User currently offlineNimish From India, joined Feb 2005, 3237 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1566 times:

Here's the response from Amazon - any suggestions?

Quote:
Greetings from Amazon.com.

I have checked both the orders and I apologize for any inconvenience
this matter has caused you.

I see that both the orders were placed from GizmosForLife, one of
our Merchants. The orders were not fulfilled as the seller ran out
of stock for the items and hence the seller has cancelled the orders.

The sellers who offer items on our site work very hard to maintain
their inventories, but sometimes an item will be sold through
another outlet before you place your order on Amazon.com.

While an occasional stock-out is bound to happen, we do require
sellers to keep these to a minimum. If we find a seller's out-of-
stock sales are excessive, we will take action.

Thank you for your understanding. We appreciate your participation
in Amazon.com.



Latest Trip Report - GoAir BLR-BOM-BLR
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1562 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
The fact that an item has a price by it makes it legally an invitation to treat, or in the US an invitation to bargain, not an offer to contract -

I never said otherwise. But you made a broad generality about "common law" that simply isn't true (at least in the US). Even by your own admission in Reply 16 it is neither "common law" nor statutory law but the contract language of the Amazon terms of use that provide for their right to cancel the agreement.

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
thus a contract does not exist until it has been accepted by both parties, and by the terms of use of Amazons website, that is when they commit to taking payment, which isnt until they actual take the payment from whatever source you have offered.

If you read my reply I specifically mentioned that as option (c). Perhaps instead of getting all upset at being proven wrong, you take the time to understand the mistake and avoid repeating it.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 18):
I never said otherwise. But you made a broad generality about "common law" that simply isn't true (at least in the US). Even by your own admission in Reply 16 it is neither "common law" nor statutory law but the contract language of the Amazon terms of use that provide for their right to cancel the agreement.

Under common law (both US, UK and Aus and many others), an invitation to treat comes before the offer and contract phases of a purchase.

The individual phases are defined by the parties involved, and in this case Amazon define the contract phase as when they take payment. The buyer giving them credit card details does not constitute a payment taken, and thus a contract does not exist until such time as when Amazon take payment from the source.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1553 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 19):
Under common law (both US, UK and Aus and many others), an invitation to treat comes before the offer and contract phases of a purchase.

That's not what is at issue here. The sole reason that the contract wasn't formed is that the terms of the offer (the invitation) claim that acceptance doesn't occur until payment is drawn. That is a contract, not common law defense to the formation of the agreement. You can continue to argue it but the more you write the more your argument proves my point.

Common law defenses to contract formation would be a failure of the minds to meet, a lack of the acceptance following the mirror image rule, mistake, destruction of the subject matter.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 20):
The sole reason that the contract wasn't formed is that the terms of the offer (the invitation) claim that acceptance doesn't occur until payment is drawn. That is a contract, not common law defense to the formation of the agreement.

Im not going to get into a pissing match here, and I know for a fact that I am correct both in contract law, common law and however else you would like to put it.

The fact remains that however you do it, a seller has the perfect right to refuse to complete any sale where the money has not already changed hands. Pressing a button on a website does not a contract make.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1539 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 21):
Im not going to get into a pissing match here, and I know for a fact that I am correct both in contract law, common law and however else you would like to put it.

The fact remains that however you do it, a seller has the perfect right to refuse to complete any sale where the money has not already changed hands. Pressing a button on a website does not a contract make.

Keep repeating that; maybe someone will evenutually believe it. I guess you've never tried buying anything on Ebay. Under your argument, because of the "common law", you can bid on something, win the auction and simply decide not to pay because until money has changed hand, no contract has been formed.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1535 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):

Keep repeating that; maybe someone will evenutually believe it.

Funnily enough, there is enough case law there to back me up.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):
I guess you've never tried buying anything on Ebay.

I have a significant Ebay history.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22):
Under your argument, because of the "common law", you can bid on something, win the auction and simply decide not to pay because until money has changed hand, no contract has been formed.

Wow, what a pure example you have given there. You do realise that there are different types of contract and acceptance of, yes? And you do realise that, by prior agreement, both parties can modify the conditions given under common law, yes?

Im sat here wondering why Im wasting my time with you, when I know, both through experience and through the advice of an expensive, knowledgable lawyer, that what I say is correct. *sigh* knock yourself out.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1530 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 23):
Wow, what a pure example you have given there. You do realise that there are different types of contract and acceptance of, yes? And you do realise that, by prior agreement, both parties can modify the conditions given under common law, yes?

Do you realize that the contract for the sale of goods in 49 of the 50 US states is not governed by the common law?

Quoting Moo (Reply 23):
Im sat here wondering why Im wasting my time with you, when I know, both through experience and through the advice of an expensive, knowledgable lawyer, that what I say is correct. *sigh* knock yourself out.

It seems to me that he is guilty of malpractice if he's advising you that the common law provides a defense to contract formation in this matter.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you a contract hasn't been formed - just that the reason that it wasn't formed has nothing to do with the common law. But instead the contract wasn't formed because the terms of the offer indicated that acceptance wasn't made until payment.

Quoting Moo (Reply 23):
Funnily enough, there is enough case law there to back me up.

And yet, you haven't cited a single one.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Paidsurveysonline.com, Easy Cash Or Big Scam? posted Wed Jun 9 2004 23:42:48 by SSTjumbo
Pricegrabber.com Prices? Liars Or Not? posted Wed Oct 22 2003 14:07:40 by Kay
Is Your Fed Ex Or UPS Driver Attractive? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 06:25:58 by FutureSDPDcop
Tigerdirect.ca Or .com - Opinions? posted Mon Jul 4 2005 23:02:46 by SKYSERVICE_330
Bigger Jerks: Fedex Or UPS Drivers? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 19:31:13 by WellHung
"Get Paid For Surveys.com": Good Money, Or A Scam? posted Sat Feb 14 2004 03:38:52 by Deltaownsall
Joecartoon.com:Hilarious, Or Plain Unfunny? posted Thu Mar 8 2001 14:39:45 by Capt.Picard
Evolution Or Creation? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 20:51:13 by Zrs70
Can You Guess Male Or Female? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 19:58:28 by AAFLT1871
Live Free Or Die Hard...pg-13 posted Sun Jun 17 2007 05:52:04 by DeltaOwnsAll