# IPAQ & Amazon - Game Over?



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Well after weeks of e-mails bouncing back and forth, i finally got a final email from their legal team who are 'now unable to provide further comment on the matter'. Not sure if I can be arsed to pursue it anymore Â :-/

Here's their 'final' email....

Dear Mr Powell

Thank you for your further e-mail, which has been passed to me for a response because you have indicated that you are seeking formal recourse over this matter. Accordingly, I thought it appropriate to give you a more detailed explanation of our legal position.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that our reliance on our legal position in no way diminishes our genuine regret at having made this mistake. I understand that you are rightly disappointed with the service that we have provided to you on this occasion. Unfortunately, with millions of items listed on our Site, despite our best efforts, it is inevitable that pricing mistakes will occur.

Every contract under English law requires not only an offer but also an acceptance together with, what is termed, consideration. Your order for this item was an offer by you to purchase it at the advertised price. That this is an offer (and not acceptance) is made clear by the fact that to place your order we prominently display the phrase at the top of the ordering page, "Please review and submit your order. By placing your order, you agree to Amazon.co.uk's conditions of use". In fact these conditions of use are also accessible for all customers to read should they choose to do so, from a link on each page of the Amazon.co.uk Site.

The Conditions of Web Site Use clearly, comprehensibly and unambiguously provide that there is no contract between Amazon.co.uk and the customer for an item until Amazon.co.uk accepts the customer's order by sending an e-mail confirming that it has dispatched the item. We have not sent this e-mail to you and so no contract has formed between us.

The fact that we do not charge the customer's credit card until the item has entered the dispatch process is entirely consistent with this approach. On this occasion, as the item was not in stock, we did not dispatch any of the items to any customers who placed an order at the incorrect price and no credit cards were charged.

You will have received an e-mail from us confirming that you had sent us an order. We are obliged under the United Kingdom's Electronic Communications Regulations to acknowledge receipt of any order "without undue delay and by electronic means". We therefore send each customer an order acknowledgement e-mail to confirm receipt of a customer's order: this does not constitute acceptance of a customer's order. The Electronic Communications Regulations recognise that the sending of the order acknowledgement e-mail will often not be the most appropriate time for a contract to be concluded and does not oblige online retailers to accept orders at the time that they acknowledge receipt of the orders. It is left to the parties to agree what event will give rise to the formation of a contract between them, and Amazon.co.uk's agreement with you is that the contract will not be formed until Amazon.co.uk has sent you an e-mail notifying you that the relevant item has been dispatched.

At the same time, Amazon.co.uk is obliged to notify customers that any contract formed with Amazon.co.uk may be cancelled in accordance with the "cooling-off" period in the Distance Selling Regulations. We are required to notify customers in a "durable medium" and this includes e-mail. Rather than send multiple e-mails to customers, we chose to include this notification in the order acknowledgement e-mail. Referring to a "contract" in the "Your right to cancel" section of the order acknowledgement e-mail is not an acknowledgement that a contract has already been concluded but is merely a fulfillment of our obligation to explain to customers that if a contract is concluded at the time and in the manner specified in our Conditions of Web Site Use, that they can cool-off from "this contract". Please note, the reference to "this contract" in paragraph 5 of this section, refers to the contract discussed in the previous paragraph in this section and does not imply that a contract has already been concluded.

Even if a court were to consider that a contract did exist at the time that we sent the order acknowledgement e-mail, under English law, this would be a case where there was so fundamental a mistake in the price of the item, that the contract would be nullified.

continued............


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

......................continued

We expend a lot of time, money and effort to try to prevent errors in the data that makes up our Web site. But with so many products, and with data coming from many sources, it is literally impossible to prevent every single error from occurring. Unfortunately, pricing errors in internet commerce are not a new phenomenon. They have happened to Amazon and other companies before. Despite our best efforts and intentions, no system is infallible. If Amazon was obliged to accept every order when this happened, we could not offer the huge selection of items that our customers around the world have come to respect and rely upon. That is why we have a clear and prominent statement as to when the contract between Amazon and its customers is concluded.

We do believe that our position for dealing with these incorrectly priced items on this occasion is fundamentally fair and reasonable and is consistent with our customers' legitimate expectations: most customers understand that, despite our best efforts, pricing errors occasionally crop up among the millions of product listings on our Web site. They also understand that such mistakes do not entitle them to a windfall. Rather we have found that, in general, customers feel fairly treated when we are able to notify customers promptly of the mistake before we charge their credit card and give them an opportunity to re-order the product at the correct price.

Amazon strives to be the world's most customer-centric company in the world, and no-one knows more than we do how frustrating and unpleasant a shopping experience it is when a pricing error like this occurs. We deeply regret the error and apologise to you again for any inconvenience that you have experienced.

We will be unable to provide any further comment on this matter but I do hope that this has clarified our position for you.

Paul Samuels
The Amazon.co.uk Legal Department


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

The email reply bores you into submission... but unfortunatly I think they are legally (even if not moraly) correct.

Taking it further isn't going to get you anywhere - except maybe more frustrated with them... just take your custom elsewhere.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Interesting. Do they really sell *millions* of products?

What you could do then, is order say 100 Ipaqs. They would then have to order them in. Wait until you think it is going to be despatched, & cancel the order. They are landed with 100 Ipaqs .

Perhaps you could abuse your 'cooling off' period somehow? Â :


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

If I'm honest, I reckon its morally fair of them as well as undeniably legally so......

Some companies would (if the volume and pricing error was neglible) still opt to "give away" their stock to avoid a potential public relations disaster - however the enormity of this particular error surely didn't leave them open to such an option - particularly when other people were obviously profiteering by ordering 10+ of them to sell on to mates etc......

If a company overcharged you, you'd quite rightly expect to be able to return the item or have the excess refunded. I don't see why the same should not apply the other way around......


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Someone I know says the order acceptance e-mail states it is a contract at the bottom - does yours say that?

Dave


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2003)

pity...... 

back to ebay then


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Fair enough really - I think their phrase 'windfall' sums it up quite nicely. Alright they Fcuked up, I was chuffed to bits as well when I managed to order one but at the end of the day it was only a mistake and I don't feel put out at all. It's not like any of us can't afford it at the true price if we really needed one is it?

Mind you if I was an anti-capitalist then things would be different...


----------



## Antwerpman (Nov 4, 2002)

I just wonder if you had you had attached YOUR conditions required for a contract to purchase to exist, and if there was a subsequent dispute, would they be so understanding?

I think that in such a case they would bend the law to suit themselves once again.

Have to say that I would be surprised that if in Law a contract was seen to exist that they would then just cancell the contract because it was 'wrong'. If both parties have entered in to the contract willingly (or even unwittingly) then I dont think that 'I don't like it any more' is a defence for breaking it.

I guess they are working on the good old stonewalling principle......throw enough obstacles in the way of people and 99.99% will give up, the cost of satisfying the remaining 0.01% will be far less than the original cost or any possible legal action which may arise, so those persistent (or bloody minded) enough may get a result!!


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

They're legally in the right, as they point out. The issue is simply that they made a mistake, did not accept the offers to treat and are saying they're not going to honour their mistake, despite the PR implications.

There's no legal action can be taken Â :-/

We used to have a large retail business. My favourite complainers were the ones who said "I know my rights". Because they never, ever, did.

So I'd reply: "what are they then?"

They would give some half-witted reply, and I'd reply:
"You're hopelessly wrong. Go down the CAB, ask them. Go down the Trading Standards and ask them. Once you do know your "rights", come back."

You know, none of them ever did.


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

Although I can see your point Kev, I can see their point too. Time to give in I think!


----------



## StiV (May 7, 2002)

I'm astounded you even wasted your time persuing this. Maybe you don't have anything to do at work  What did you hope to achieve? That by some miracle they would suddenly feel sorry for you and capitulate?



> our position for dealing with these incorrectly priced items on this occasion is fundamentally fair and reasonable


Maybe I missed another of your post but I'd be interested in hearing what, exactly, you based your argument on... because nothing I was sent following my order indicated I had entered into any sort of agreement. Their T&C's were quite clear too.



> Conditions of Web Site Use clearly, comprehensibly and unambiguously provide that there is no contract between Amazon.co.uk and the customer for an item until Amazon.co.uk accepts the customer's order by sending an e-mail confirming that it has dispatched the item


----------



## sam (May 7, 2002)

Let's face it, everyone who jumped on the bandwagon didn't want an iPaq (or 10), they wanted to make money. I am yet to talk to anyone (with more than two brain cells) who placed an order seriously expecting to get their order of 5 turning up on the door step.

Sam


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

> Amazon strives to be the world's most customer-centric company in the world


wow thats quite customer-centric! :

Reminds me of Smashie & Nicey's "one of me all time favourite tracks of all time, mate"


----------

