The Super-Duper Cheap Bargains Thread

[The new erato]

I pretty much knew that the pricing was a mistake in the first place, so I did not get very upset with the cancellation. I suspect that all of us were aware of that this was likely to be a pricing error.

So how come they just delivered my order of Gunter Wand Great Recordings at £ 14.50?

[Jo498]

If a pricing error or wrong in/out of stock flag in some database are "inexcusable errors" I am happy that I do not work with or for YOU.

And it it really was a "sell out", say, they had a handful of those boxes and they sold out rather quickly, would they have to provide it still at the price? I do not think so. sold out is sold out.

I am not saying that there was no error/fault on the seller's part. I just find it ridiculous to claim that you have a right to get an already dirt cheap box for half its price, because someone made a mistake, and if, for whatever reasons they do not clearly own this mistake, they are "lying bastards"

10 or 12 years ago there was a pricing error at amazon.uk or .de, I do not remember the details. Many Boxes (they were not quite as cheap then as now) were priced as single discs, so you could buy a box at a third or less of its regular price. Through the usenet group rec.music.classical.recordings these "discounts" became widely known and hundreds of orders were placed before the error was corrected. Some of the stuff was shipped at the low prices, some orders were canceled. (I do not remember exactly what I ordered, but the Barenboim/Mozart concerti on EMI was one box and I got it really cheaply.)
For weeks afterwards folks at the newsgroup were foaming at the mouth about the canceled orders, although in this case the pricing error had been blatantly obvious. (Some people referred to it as "amazon feeding frenzy" - google it)

[Ken B]

Once Naxos Direct accidentally changed several 25-CD box sets to be just $2.99. I ordered six - two of each kind of box, one for me and one for a friend. I later received, by mistake, an internal email by the sales people saying something like, "Crap! Someone ordered a bunch of these boxes for $2.99! We have to honor it, but fix the price pronto!" And they did. They fixed the price, but billed me $18 and sent all 150 CDs.

We need to erect a SDCBT monument to Brian. I am thinking an 18 foot statue would be appropriate.

[Que]

This has been an entertaining read. 

Lying is cheating, in my book. As is not honouring a contract without a valid reason... The item not being in stock is actually not a valid reason to cancel an order, unless the item is not obtainable any more.
Though I have no particular expertise in this field of law, under Dutch law an offer that has been accepted is binding, unless there has been a mistake on the part of the seller was evident to the buyer. Not the possibility of a mistake, but an offer that was so unlikely it had to be a mistake.

I'm not entirely sure - unlike the example of the Naxos offerings (!) - that was the case here. Amazing offers happen every day at Amazon, and €22 for a box set does not seem that impossible.
Also, in most cases the transaction was explicitly accepted by the seller... The fact that we are aware that pricing and the processing of transactions is automated and errors do occur, does IMO not mean that buyers could not legitimately trust that the transaction would have to be honoured.

Q

[The new erato]

I just find it ridiculous to claim that you have a right to get an already dirt cheap box for half its price, because someone made a mistake, and if, for whatever reasons they do not clearly own this mistake, they are "lying bastards"

I never said that. Eg look at my post of October 21, 2014, 02:30:30 PM. It's all about impolite customer service and blaming everybody else. And the "lying bastards" post was in a context that should have made it clear to anyone with a slightest sense of humour that it was a joke. But they got a one star feedback. Failing to deliver with no good excuse is one star material to me.

Edit: I think Que has a very accurate take on the situation in the above post.

Edit 2: And as I already have 60% of the offered boxes bought at ordinary prices, it is not exactly as I am adverse to buying at reasonable prices, and that the cancellation is a major problem. But I hate being treated as dirt. I realize now that "incompetent and impolite fools" would be a better description than "lying bastards" (joke alert for those that don't get it).

[North Star]

A big +1 to Que's post.

Of course they will have an excuse if they realize their mistake and the laws are now such that they had to fulfil those orders. (I am pretty sure it is/was not like that in Germany.)

So, you're defending their actions because they were illegal?

[Jo498]

Here's a link to the incident in 2001 where the mispriced EMI boxes lead to Furtwängler's Ring and Kempe's Strauss box leading the amazon.de sales charts. If I remember correctly, I was early enough and my order was fulfilled. Not exactly sure, but I think I got the Barenboim Mozart concerti, the Samson Francois Chopin and the Kempe Strauss (maybe one more).

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=de#!searchin/rec.music.classical.recordings/amazon$20emi$20boxes/rec.music.classical.recordings/7Dr0eRgGxmo/M9S-fNbdNAoJ

[Jo498]

A big +1 to Que's post.
So, you're defending their actions because they were illegal?

No. I do not know the laws in such cases. Neither do I know whether they lied. I don't think a pricing error is worse than an error about availability.
I am not sure that the same rules apply to the marketplace sellers as they do to amazon. Because some/many of them are apparently sellers of overstock and/or used items where it is obvious that there will not be as many items in stock as at proper amazon.

I do not know about the Netherlands, but I am pretty sure that in Germany if something is out of stock, but could in principle be bought elsewhere the seller who cleared his stock by offering the last few items at sell out prices does not have to buy the item and sell it at a huge loss, only because some computer system did not update in time.

Today I received an order by jpc. One item was out of stock/not available from their supplier. As it had been on sale this was not unexpected (although when I had ordered a week or so ago it was still listed as available). But the disc is available from some marketplace seller. So should I now tell jpc that they owe me this thing at their sales price, because they could buy it from some seller somewhere in the world and then sell it to me with 5 or 10 EUR loss? This would be plain ridiculous, I think.

I am not defending those sellers. They made mistakes either in pricing or in availability or both. But I think the behavior of some people here who seem to think they have a right to receive bargains due to pricing errors is ridiculous. I still do not understand how anyone has been cheated in all this.

[ammar]

A different approach in common law jurisdictions (Scotland, England, US, etc.) :

"The classic example of an invitation to treat is when a shop owner puts a very low price on a product in the shop window. If you take the item to the counter the shopkeeper does not have to sell it to you. In strict legal terms it is you that makes the offer by offering to buy the product with your money. A shopkeeper who has mistakenly priced a product too cheaply is therefore not obliged to sell at that price." (from here)

Hence UK sellers usually state in their T&C's that acceptance only takes place when payment is taken from your account. Who knew that the SDCB would bring up the thorny issue of the harmonization of contract law across the EU? 

[NLK1971]

I've just had dispatch confirmation of "Philippe Entremont: The Complete Piano Concerto Recordings" from dodax-online-uk, so some of these offers may have been valid.  The £14.50 price is only around £10 less than the standard Amazon price though.

[Cosi bel do]

A different approach in common law jurisdictions (Scotland, England, US, etc.) :

"The classic example of an invitation to treat is when a shop owner puts a very low price on a product in the shop window. If you take the item to the counter the shopkeeper does not have to sell it to you. In strict legal terms it is you that makes the offer by offering to buy the product with your money. A shopkeeper who has mistakenly priced a product too cheaply is therefore not obliged to sell at that price." (from here)

Hence UK sellers usually state in their T&C's that acceptance only takes place when payment is taken from your account. Who knew that the SDCB would bring up the thorny issue of the harmonization of contract law across the EU? 

Yes, BUT in the case of a conflict between two national laws, for instance if the seller and the buyer are in different countries of EU, I'm quite sure the rules retained are always those that advantage the client.

[North Star]

I am not defending those sellers. They made mistakes either in pricing or in availability or both. But I think the behavior of some people here who seem to think they have a right to receive bargains due to pricing errors is ridiculous. I still do not understand how anyone has been cheated in all this.

What errors? Nobody has said anywhere that the prices were in any way erroneous.

[Todd]

A lot of virtual ink is being spilled over something rather trivial.  First world problems.

[Jo498]

That was my tacit assumption, I may be wrong.
Than the error might have been that they overestimated their stock or listing something they did not have in stock in the first place. Do you think they put stuff there at low prices to make you first greedy and then angry?

What ammar says is or used to be exactly the same in Germany, at least for in-store dealings, not sure about online. The technical term is "invitatio ad offerendi". That means, the seller invites you (by putting stuff on sale) to make him an offer (the price on the price tag) by carrying the item to the checkout. So when it turns out at the checkout that the item was mispriced, the seller can decline your offer (refuse to sell it at the marked price). Of course, often they will either not realize the mistake or follow the price tag and rather sell it more cheaply than lose you as a customer.

That sounds strange, but just think about haggling. You could ask for a discount at the checkout because you bought so much, so you would make an offer different from the price tags.

[jut1972]

 I'm with Jo498 on this.   They priced some boxsets cheaply and ran out of stock.   That's it.
That's why some were sent and the other orders cancelled. There was no attempt at deception or sharp practice.

I'm saying this and I have reason to complain.   Amazon Italy have charged me and are now having to refund and I have nothing to show for it.

Do I blame them?  No. I blame the fact that they posted some excellent deals across Europe and we all dived in. 

[Que]

Though I had no personal involvement in this whole episode, pleas allow me to make point out:

I do not know about the Netherlands, but I am pretty sure that in Germany if something is out of stock, but could in principle be bought elsewhere the seller who cleared his stock by offering the last few items at sell out prices does not have to buy the item and sell it at a huge loss, only because some computer system did not update in time.

I do not know about Germany, but here the seller is (naturally) allowed to make the price/offer conditional to availability of stock ("price /offer" valid while stock lasts"). If no such condition is stated in the offer, a deal is a deal.

Today I received an order by jpc. One item was out of stock/not available from their supplier. As it had been on sale this was not unexpected (although when I had ordered a week or so ago it was still listed as available). But the disc is available from some marketplace seller. So should I now tell jpc that they owe me this thing at their sales price, because they could buy it from some seller somewhere in the world and then sell it to me with 5 or 10 EUR loss? This would be plain ridiculous, I think.

Of course that is not what I meant Availability within reason, or in other words: through the usual channels. But obviously, when an item is offered again, there is no problem with availability....

I am not defending those sellers. They made mistakes either in pricing or in availability or both. But I think the behavior of some people here who seem to think they have a right to receive bargains due to pricing errors is ridiculous. I still do not understand how anyone has been cheated in all this.

Well, what is fair?  I agree with you that when someone knows or should have known that there has been an (obvious) mistake, one has to accept a transaction falling through. But a seller should not resort to false excuses, owe up to the mistake and do with is usually considered decent and fair in these cases: offer the item at the lowest price reasonable possible - at cost price.

I do not think it is fair to put the problem of a possible mistake caused by an automated pricing system that was the put in place by choice of the seller on the shoulders of the customer.

Q

[bigshot]

Until they take possession of your cash and give you a receipt, they can cancel for whatever reason they want... even sunspots. It's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

[Que]

Until they take possession of your cash and give you a receipt, they can cancel for whatever reason they want... even sunspots. It's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

The law of reality... As is dumping the sellers down with negative reviews because of what happened. Both parties use whatever means they have at there disposal.

But a breach [ ] of trust has occurred, no matter what rules you think are applicable...

Q

[Harry]

Okay I looked it up, according to European law, "when you had confirmation of the transaction including an order number" its a closed deal.
So whatever they had to deliver.
But as Que said, if it was a pricing mistake they should at least have the decency, first to tell the truth, and secondly sell the items at the lowest possible price.
These boxes are back again with these sellers at higher prices, so there was no shortage of what was ordered.

[Harry]

The law of reality... As is dumping the sellers down with negative reviews because of what happened. Both parties use whatever means they have at there disposal.

But a beach of trust has occurred, no matter what rules you think are applicable...

Q

LOL a beach of trust