Tellingthem: Secret Agent X23: Well, I dunno. Normally, my opinion would be that if the story was simply that he found prices that he admits he knew were too good to be true and tried to place an order, well, good luck with that, but fark him if the company gets wise to it. But if he contacts a rep who assures him the prices are for real, I would be less inclined to let the company off the hook.

...but then again, nobody asked me...

Yep that is the sticky point with me. If he verified the prices with Apple then he should get them. Hell it's not they would have lost much money on the deal anyway. They probably make more than that every second.

What does it for me is that there's not one misstep by Apple here, there's two. First they tell him the prices are genuine, but that turns out to be a lie. THEN they tell him "we were wrong, but we'll let you have the stuff we already shipped", and turn around and make that a lie too.

Even in the U.S. they'd be in trouble. One time you can blame it on an overzealous employee. Two times on the same deal and it's breech of contract.

dywed88: roc6783: Theaetetus: The Only Jeff: ***snip***

I already answered myself when I tried to find out if pricing mistakes have to be honored. Previously, I was looking at it as an advertising error, when it is actually a pricing issue. One of the first results was from the New Zealand government's website.

It only refers to criminal charges, but:

The Fair Trading Act provides some general defences to criminal actions taken under the Act. Note that these defences do not apply to civil actions.

These defences are that:

- The contravention was due to a 'reasonable mistake'. To prove a reasonable mistake, it is necessary to show there was an intention to act correctly. This means some reasonable system of checking, such as a compliance programme, should have been in place to detect errors.

If Apple has a system in place to check for pricing errors, it seems that they would be in the clear.

bmr68: If Apple refunded his money then he has not suffered a loss. He could sue, but he really has no case.

He's already filed suit:
Crouchley received a full refund, but was still unhappy with Apple's actions, so he filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal and will now be attending his hearing in December at Te Awamutu District Court.

"I'm a bit nervous about it," Crouchley admitted. "I'd imagine they'd probably want to settle before we get to that date. They may want to prove a point and show up but it can't go too wrong against me."

That latter part is interesting... If it's implying that he knows he doesn't have a case and is doing it for the publicity and to extort them into a settlement, then Apple could countersue for malicious prosecution.

/but that would get them even worse press... probably cheaper to give him a free refurb laptop, expressly waive all warranties on the thing, and blacklist its MAC address from receiving system updates. :D

Happy Hours: BarkingUnicorn: IDK how this will play out in the UK.

IDK either, but it's happening in New Zealand. Is that still part of the UK? I didn't think so.

No, but they have the same Queen (who has vastly more power in New Zealand than she does in the UK).

If I went to a Target in the USA, and there's a $2000 TV incorrectly marked for $200, they have to sell it to me for that price. I'm not talking about a misplaced item over a tag for a different item. But let's say someone prints out the price on the tag wrong and doesn't catch it. They have to own up to those mistakes.

Why isn't the same true here?

Unconscionable contracts are unenforceable. Presumably a court could decide that selling $1600 dollars worth of goods for $35 meant that there wasn't valid consideration.

rocky_howard: That's not what happened, but thanks for trying.

As far as I can tell, that is what happened. I don't care if a call center agreed with his observations or not.

Anyone thinking they can get 1600 dollars worth of current Apple product for 35 dollars is either high, or an imbecile.

He got his 35 dollars back. He didn't get any product. He ended up at square one and is in a huff because an error didn't pay out.

I reiterate. Boo. Farking. Hoo.

BarkingUnicorn: IDK how this will play out in the UK. But here in the States, a court wouldn't give this guy anything. Mistakes were made, the contract was canceled, and the guy was made whole. His "emotional distress" over losing a bargain doesn't qualify for monetary damages.

I get that this is NZ, but in the U.S., depending on the applicable state law, he could sue under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act or the FTCA.

FTFL:

Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, if a business or person engages in the following, the action constitutes a deceptive trade practice:

- Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised

- Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions

BarkingUnicorn: IDK how this will play out in the UK.


Oh look, an idiot!


tbhouston: Umm.."honour".. farking proof read your article

Oh jeez, another!


Cinaed: A pricing error was corrected before someone could actually benefit from it.

Boo. Farking. Hoo..


Holy shiat, this place is crawling with morans!

In the UK, at the point they take your money you have bought the items and they are your property. If they intercept the postal system and take your items that is theft of your property.

It`s really simple. Even if an automated system takes the money then that is the company accepting your order as the law sees it.

vudukungfu: Contract = Offer + Acceptance and the deal is sealed with Consideration. He paid for his purchaces.
Apple must deliver the goods.


This. It`s contract law...

I thought the main reason for buying Apple gear was paying the huge prices. It's a different type of smug than buying something cheaper than someone else and bragging about it but it's oh so satisfying.

yukichigai: Tellingthem: Secret Agent X23: Well, I dunno. Normally, my opinion would be that if the story was simply that he found prices that he admits he knew were too good to be true and tried to place an order, well, good luck with that, but fark him if the company gets wise to it. But if he contacts a rep who assures him the prices are for real, I would be less inclined to let the company off the hook.

...but then again, nobody asked me...

Yep that is the sticky point with me. If he verified the prices with Apple then he should get them. Hell it's not they would have lost much money on the deal anyway. They probably make more than that every second.

What does it for me is that there's not one misstep by Apple here, there's two. First they tell him the prices are genuine, but that turns out to be a lie. THEN they tell him "we were wrong, but we'll let you have the stuff we already shipped", and turn around and make that a lie too.

Even in the U.S. they'd be in trouble. One time you can blame it on an overzealous employee. Two times on the same deal and it's breech of contract.

Three errors, actually:
1) Advertising at a price, and allowing it to be sold at that price, processing payment, etc.
2) Verifying the price through human contact
3) Recalling the package, despite promising it would be allowed to be delivered.

Awkkkward!

2xhelix: "I ordered a bunch of stuff," said Crouchley, impressed by the discounts. "I spent about $35 and got about $1600 worth of gear, so I was pretty happy with myself then."

$1600, so that's 2 sets of Apple headphones and a charger?

I think they throw in an " i love apple" sticker for an additional 10 bucks