GHL On Sale - BRS

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

"Online Pricing Standards
When an e-commerce website has had an incorrect price entered into its database, it can end up not only advertising that price but also accepting orders and charging customers' credit cards for that amount. The central issue here is whether retailers can void the contract created when orders were accepted.
The easiest way for a company to deal with such situations is to have website "terms of use" that clearly state the company can cancel orders and refund customers' money because of pricing errors (or for any reason). Otherwise, a common law doctrine known as "unilateral mistake of fact" applies. This doctrine allows a party to a contract to set aside the contract if honoring it would be "unconscionable," or if the other party could have reasonably assumed it was a mistake. A $1,000 item advertised for $10 likely would meet this definition."

The problem is for BRS that such disclaimer, or such terms, was/were not a part of the contract at checkout.

Unless some authority says otherwise, and i have not seen any cited here, merely posting a disclaimer somewhere on a website does not make it a part of the contract. Most if not all buyers never even saw, let alone agreed, to such term.

Moreover, once the credit card is charged, i think rescinding the contract becomes difficult.

Again, would love to see authority otherwise, but noone has posted such and i found none in my brief search on westlaw.


Edit: and good luck witj any "unconscionability" argument... courts basically never look at the adequately of consideration. I have basically never seen that argument win. It's from a by gone era. Moreover, Minnesota law in the supreme court case i cited didnt even mention it as an element of mistake doctrine there.

 

[Jeffcb]

Whatever. I just want my 14 dosers. Imagine all the tubing I will need.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I disagree. They have to make the customer 'whole'. i.e. provide the merchandise - or provide a refund.

No, the remedy for breach of contract is specific performance. They must perform on the contract. Alternative remedies would only come into play if specific performance was unavailable. BRS clearly has the ability to perform.

And yes i think a court would make them perform. The buyer just bought what was advertised. The burden of the mistake falls on the seller.

 

[FishyFishFish]

I disagree. They have to make the customer 'whole'. i.e. provide the merchandise - or provide a refund. What to me is insane is all the posts saying 'this is impossible, it must be a mistake - but just in case, I'm going to order anyway'. Do you think any reasonable court would say that going into a contract 'knowing or strongly assuming its wrong' - is going to side with that party? I do not.

In any event - no one even knows whether they were just clearing out GHL stuff - in which case, maybe its better to wait before trying the case? Or?

Whether you think this is intentional or not depends on whether you believe that they would clear items at 6% of their retail price (without listing them in their clearance section), when they could easily clear them at a much higher value in a very short period of time, whilst simultaneously not wanting to clear other items by the same manufacturer by pricing them at a significant markup.

The belief that this was a genuine sale is just wishful thinking IMO.

I can see both side of the argument as to whether they fulfil these orders or not, but I am having trouble believing that anyone really thinks this was a genuine sale.

 

[Chrisv.]

Whatever. I just want my 14 dosers. Imagine all the tubing I will need.

You should checkout saltwateraquarium.com for all your tubing needs. It's a family owned small business, so treat them ethically!

 

[MnFish1]

PS - seems like most/all of the prices of GHL stuff as of today looks 'normal'. Ie. The KHL director with dosed is 900+ dollars. So seems like it was either a mistake - or some kind of 'special'

 

[JNalley]

Whether you think this is intentional or not depends on whether you believe that they would clear items at 6% of their retail price (without listing them in their clearance section), when they could easily clear them at a much higher value in a very short period of time, whilst simultaneously not wanting to clear other items by the same manufacturer by pricing them at a significant markup.

The belief that this was a genuine sale is just wishful thinking IMO.

I can see both side of the argument as to whether they fulfil these orders or not, but I am having trouble believing that anyone really thinks this was a genuine sale.

The burden here, and the crux to the first part of your argument is that it actually happened during a sales and points event, so the illusion at least holds some small amount of weight.

 

[MnFish1]

Whether you think this is intentional or not depends on whether you believe that they would clear items at 6% of their retail price (without listing them in their clearance section), when they could easily clear them at a much higher value in a very short period of time, whilst simultaneously not wanting to clear other items by the same manufacturer by pricing them at a significant markup.

The belief that this was a genuine sale is just wishful thinking IMO.

I can see both side of the argument as to whether they fulfil these orders or not, but I am having trouble believing that anyone really thinks this was a genuine sale.

Oh - I think it was a mistake - at least all of the prices seem to be 'normal' as of this AM. I was only saying that I am not sure that there is any legal recourse.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Whether you think this is intentional or not depends on whether you believe that they would clear items at 6% of their retail price (without listing them in their clearance section), when they could easily clear them at a much higher value in a very short period of time, whilst simultaneously not wanting to clear other items by the same manufacturer by pricing them at a significant markup.

The belief that this was a genuine sale is just wishful thinking IMO.

I can see both side of the argument as to whether they fulfil these orders or not, but I am having trouble believing that anyone really thinks this was a genuine sale.

Courts look at the plain language of the contract and basically NEVER try to determine if consideration (payment) was adequate. Many homes sell for $1, for example. That contract is perfectly enforceable.

Your arguments would be barred by the parol evidence rule that, essentially, prevents anything contrary to the plain language of the contract from being considered by the court.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Oh - I think it was a mistake - at least all of the prices seem to be 'normal' as of this AM. I was only saying that I am not sure that there is any legal recourse.

It was a mistake. But not by the buyer. They happily accepted the low price. And could it was offered. The mistake may be expensive, somewhat, for BRS.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I'm gonna have some prices photoshopped and place that in my thread, tag Broccoli and mywifeisgunnakillme (we need to shorten this name), and watch the chaos.

Hey..you have to admit my photoshop was a funny troll!!

 

[EpipelagicReef]

I've stated my reasons and its not insanity. Sellers being held by courts to have to perform in these types of situations was very easy to find in caselaw.

No it really is. This happens all the time, it seems maybe you've over extended from your area of law.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

20 pages over the span of 24 hours and not one single mind has been changed. Lol.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear “You know what, you were right. I was upset but now I would like to buy you dinner!!”

not once!!!

You know what? You ARE right...not a single mind was changed!!

 

[MnFish1]

Whether you think this is intentional or not depends on whether you believe that they would clear items at 6% of their retail price (without listing them in their clearance section), when they could easily clear them at a much higher value in a very short period of time, whilst simultaneously not wanting to clear other items by the same manufacturer by pricing them at a significant markup.

The belief that this was a genuine sale is just wishful thinking IMO.

I can see both side of the argument as to whether they fulfil these orders or not, but I am having trouble believing that anyone really thinks this was a genuine sale.

At first - I considered the possibility - given the recent 'merger' (pick your name for it) - they were clearing out GHL stuff. But - they were not in the clearance section - and the prices are now back to normal.

Another possibility - I suppose - is there was some advertising out there (somewhere - I didn't see it) - advertising we are selling x GHL equipment (kind of like a Black Friday type of 'door buster' - where they sell $2000 TV's for $100.

Either way - my guess is that someone from BRS monitors the internet 24/7 and they will either make some kind of announcement or contact the customers directly

 

[MnFish1]

Courts look at the plain language of the contract and basically NEVER try to determine if consideration (payment) was adequate. Many homes sell for $1, for example. That contract is perfectly enforceable.

Your arguments would be barred by the parol evidence rule that, essentially, prevents anything contrary to the plain language of the contract from being considered by the court.

Curious - aren't the website terms of use "part of the contract"? This has already been posted. BTW - GHL is also on the list of products that 'are not discounted' below the MAP (There are some items that we are unable to discount or provide bonus points on due to manufacturer minimum advertised price (MAP) rules and other restrictions. These items are already priced at the lowest price allowed. The following is a partial list of vendors with pricing policies. Please understand, BRS may add new vendors to this list at any time.)

"

INACCURACY DISCLAIMER​

From time to time there may be information on our web site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions that may relate to product descriptions, pricing, and availability. Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions and to change or update information at any time without prior notice (including after you have submitted your order).

Any action relating to the use of the website or any transaction with Bulkreefsupply.com must be brought in the state or federal courts located in the County of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Last Updated: March 2020"

 

[EpipelagicReef]

Curious - aren't the website terms of use "part of the contract"? This has already been posted. BTW - GHL is also on the list of products that 'are not discounted' below the MAP (There are some items that we are unable to discount or provide bonus points on due to manufacturer minimum advertised price (MAP) rules and other restrictions. These items are already priced at the lowest price allowed. The following is a partial list of vendors with pricing policies. Please understand, BRS may add new vendors to this list at any time.)

"

INACCURACY DISCLAIMER​

From time to time there may be information on our web site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions that may relate to product descriptions, pricing, and availability. Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions and to change or update information at any time without prior notice (including after you have submitted your order).

Any action relating to the use of the website or any transaction with Bulkreefsupply.com must be brought in the state or federal courts located in the County of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Last Updated: March 2020"

Weird that an attorney doesn't realize that by checking out you agree to the terms and conditions. It's right there when you order.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

No it really is. This happens all the time, it seems maybe you've over extended from your area of law.

I said BRS may refund the money and may cancel the orders. And that may happen all of the time. That in no way makes it legal.

I am waiting for citation of authority that overrides the common law principles here. No one has provided that. I didnt find any in a short review.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

Curious - aren't the website terms of use "part of the contract"? This has already been posted. BTW - GHL is also on the list of products that 'are not discounted' below the MAP (There are some items that we are unable to discount or provide bonus points on due to manufacturer minimum advertised price (MAP) rules and other restrictions. These items are already priced at the lowest price allowed. The following is a partial list of vendors with pricing policies. Please understand, BRS may add new vendors to this list at any time.)

"

INACCURACY DISCLAIMER​

From time to time there may be information on our web site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions that may relate to product descriptions, pricing, and availability. Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions and to change or update information at any time without prior notice (including after you have submitted your order).

Any action relating to the use of the website or any transaction with Bulkreefsupply.com must be brought in the state or federal courts located in the County of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Last Updated: March 2020"

I wonder how caselaw would treat someone selling something they are not legally allowed to sell in the first place at the price they posted. The contractual arrangement BRS has with GHL and MAP pricing prevents them from advertising and selling at this price. Havent contracts been broken because they were based upon something not allowable in the first place?

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Curious - aren't the website terms of use "part of the contract"? This has already been posted. BTW - GHL is also on the list of products that 'are not discounted' below the MAP (There are some items that we are unable to discount or provide bonus points on due to manufacturer minimum advertised price (MAP) rules and other restrictions. These items are already priced at the lowest price allowed. The following is a partial list of vendors with pricing policies. Please understand, BRS may add new vendors to this list at any time.)

"

INACCURACY DISCLAIMER​

From time to time there may be information on our web site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions that may relate to product descriptions, pricing, and availability. Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions and to change or update information at any time without prior notice (including after you have submitted your order).

Any action relating to the use of the website or any transaction with Bulkreefsupply.com must be brought in the state or federal courts located in the County of Golden Valley, Minnesota. Last Updated: March 2020"

BRS does not have additional terms of contract at checkout... it just has price, shipping, tax, etc. Thus, the disclamer is not a part of the contract.

BRS 's best argument may be that using the website at all is agreeing to those terms.

That would be a sort of unilateral contract, in addition to the bilateral contract that was the sale.

But again thats a huge stretch unless some authority clearly stands for that proposition.

There is a reason that companies have you agree to additional terms at check out, or when when agreeing to any contracr online. BUT BRS just doesnt do that at checkout. I think that makes the disclaimer inapplicable.

Im done repeating myself on this point..

 

[PeterC99]

BRS does not have additional terms of contract at checkout... it just has price, shipping, tax, etc. Thus, the disclamer is not a part of the contract.

BRS 's best argument may be that using the website at all is agreeing to those terms.

That would be a sort of unilateral contract, in addition to the bilateral contract that was the sale.

But again thats a huge stretch unless some authority clearly stands for that proposition.

There is a reason that have you agree to additional terms at check out, or when when agreeing to any contracr online, orBRS just doesnt do that at checkout. I think that makes the disclaimer inapplicable.

Im done repeating myself on this point..

Will you ever buy anything from BRS in the future?