GHL On Sale - BRS

[homer1475]

Why, oh why do I keep getting sucked back into this thread?

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I'm giving up because you clearly don't get it; you are only seeing what you want to see in the hope to prove your argument.

That wasn't a pricing error; it was a specific statement (or whatever, I don't care for the legalese) that if the gentlemen was one of the first 3 to enter the store then they would sell him the item for $1. He was, and they didn't. It wasn't a pricing error and the store didn't argue that. It was a specific offer that they refused to honor, hence why he won (half of) his case.

Oh my god, you dont think the offeror wasnt refusing to sell at the price advertised and that court didnt tell him otherwise?

 

[JNalley]

If you read the Minnesota retail statute - it states (to my reading - paraphrased) - Retailers are required to honor prices. And if they WILLFULLY misplace items and do not correct the error - that is a problem:

"
Sec. 4.

(1) A person shall not knowingly advertise the availability of a consumer item for sale at retail at a sale or special price, or as being reduced in price by an amount or proportion, unless the advertisement meets all of the following:
(a) It includes the dates that item is available at the advertised price, or the quantity available at the advertised price.
(b) If applicable, it states that the item is available at that price only as long as the advertised quantity lasts or as long as quantities or supplies last.
(c) If there is a limitation on the quantity available of a consumer item to each customer, that limitation is clearly disclosed.
(2) If a person advertises a consumer item at a specific price that is not indicated to be a special, sale, or reduced price, the advertiser shall do 1 of the following:
(a) Make the consumer item available at the advertised price for not less than 5 days after the date the consumer item was last advertised. If the item is not available for that period of time, the requirements of subsection (3) apply. The advertiser is not required to make the consumer item available nor fulfill the requirements of subsection (3) if the unavailability of the consumer item is due to a governmental action, a plant closing, or an act of God and if the specific cause of the unavailability of the consumer item is posted conspicuously for review by the consumer.
(b) Indicate in the advertisement the dates the consumer item is available at the advertised price. If the item is not available for those dates, the requirements of subsection (3) apply.
(c) Indicate in the advertisement the quantity of the consumer item that is available at the advertised price and include in the advertisement that the consumer item is available at the advertised price only as long as the stated quantity lasts.
(3) If an advertisement under this section does not state the quantity of a consumer item available or meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2)(c), and if the consumer item cannot be sold at the advertised price throughout the advertised period of sale, the advertiser shall make available to the customer a written guarantee to deliver under the advertised conditions the consumer item at a future date stated in the guarantee, or when notified by the advertiser that the item is available. If the advertised consumer item cannot be obtained to satisfy the condition of the guarantee, the advertiser may provide a similar consumer item of equal or greater monetary value.
(4) If an advertiser elects in a written guarantee under subsection (3) to notify a consumer when a consumer item will be available, the notification of availability shall take place within 90 days after the guarantee is given. After the notice of availability is given, the advertiser shall hold the consumer item for delivery to the customer for at least 7 days, except the advertiser is required to hold the consumer item for only 2 days if it is a perishable item."

I can't read all that or I'll end up like the dude in the Gif.

I think the relevant part of your paraphrase is how to argue Willfully. The "mistake" happened during a sales and points event in which the buyer(s) have reason to assume that these are sales prices, and contract law favors the buyer in retail situations. From what I gather from his communications thus far.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I believe that I would be able to successfully defend against this argument. One of the core issues here is that there were terms and conditions that were contrary to the plain language of the offer (ie first come first serve). GMSS had a specific purpose for their offer and their intention was straight forward but their language was ambiguous / missing terms which under contract law must be determined to the non writer of the contract. A pricing mistake does not signify intent and changes the facts of the case enough that this would not be on point.

The price is not a mistake to the buyer. That's what matters here. The buyer agreed to the price advertised. The seller accepted by running payment. Done.

There is no ambiguity in the contract between BRS and buyer. Evidence of sellers "mistake" wont even be admitted into evidence.

 

[MnFish1]

Here is an article with numerous examples of this type of thing - online. Its not a legal article - but it summarizes nicely how various companies have handled an error (note at this time - all of this entire thread is moot - becasue no one knows exactly what happened - or what BRS will do) - so I'm posting this for interest: Here is the summary:

"

Are eCommerce Stores Responsible for Pricing Mistakes?​

Although there are some instances where online stores accept purchases made through a pricing error, most of the time such transactions are not honored. In the “terms and conditions” or “condition of use,” a lot of online retailers have included that they have the authority to cancel orders whose prices are based on erroneous pricing.

However, legal repercussions and discussions concerning price glitches vary from one country to another, and one platform to another. "

eCommerce Price Glitches: Understanding Their Impact on Businesses and the Responsibility of Online Retailers - Seller Snap

As COVID-19 continues to reshape the shopping behavior of consumers, an increase in online shopping...

www.sellersnap.io

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Here is an article with numerous examples of this type of thing - online. Its not a legal article - but it summarizes nicely how various companies have handled an error (note at this time - all of this entire thread is moot - becasue no one knows exactly what happened - or what BRS will do) - so I'm posting this for interest: Here is the summary:

"

Are eCommerce Stores Responsible for Pricing Mistakes?​

Although there are some instances where online stores accept purchases made through a pricing error, most of the time such transactions are not honored. In the “terms and conditions” or “condition of use,” a lot of online retailers have included that they have the authority to cancel orders whose prices are based on erroneous pricing.

However, legal repercussions and discussions concerning price glitches vary from one country to another, and one platform to another. "

eCommerce Price Glitches: Understanding Their Impact on Businesses and the Responsibility of Online Retailers - Seller Snap

As COVID-19 continues to reshape the shopping behavior of consumers, an increase in online shopping...

www.sellersnap.io

From your google site:

"In contrast to Best Buy canceling the flash deal order, Marks & Spencer had to honor the pricing error on their platform. Online shoppers were able to purchase Panasonic 50 inch 3D plasma televisions for only £199 instead of £1,099, the correct item price. "

This is why this is a curiosity to me.

I think the BRS case is more like Mark & S Spencer than the Best Buy example.

By the way, Best Buy could care less what the law says unless and until ordered by a court otherwise...

 

[MnFish1]

From your google site:

"In contrast to Best Buy canceling the flash deal order, Marks & Spencer had to honor the pricing error on their platform. Online shoppers were able to purchase Panasonic 50 inch 3D plasma televisions for only £199 instead of £1,099, the correct item price. "

This is why this is a curiosity to me.

I think the BRS case is more like Mark & S Spencer than the Best Buy example.

By the way, Best Buy could care less what the law says unless and until ordered by a court otherwise...

I BELIEVE - that its probably a policy of the EU - or the UK. And I'm not sure it was even a law. you left out the most important part of the quote:

"A spokesperson for M&S stated that “we can confirm that there was a pricing error on the TV and after reviewing our position, we decided to honor original orders at the incorrect price. We have contacted all customers involved."

 

[FishyFishFish]

Oh my god, you dont think the offeror wasnt refusing to sell at the price advertised and that court didnt tell him otherwise?

Nope. The court said that the retailer couldn't impose additional restrictions (stating that the offer was only open to women) after it was deemed that the offer had been accepted. It wasn't a judgement based on a pricing error.

From your google site:

"In contrast to Best Buy canceling the flash deal order, Marks & Spencer had to honor the pricing error on their platform. Online shoppers were able to purchase Panasonic 50 inch 3D plasma televisions for only £199 instead of £1,099, the correct item price. "

This is why this is a curiosity to me.

I think the BRS case is more like Mark & S Spencer than the Best Buy example.

By the way, Best Buy could care less what the law says unless and until ordered by a court otherwise...

Marks and Spencer honoring the tv price was a business decision following a customer petition; it wasn't the result of legal action. I'm sure you will try to spin this to prove me wrong though.

 

[FishyFishFish]

Try this one (admittedly from the UK where laws may be different).

Argos in the clear over 49p TV e-commerce error

Argos has covered itself against ****-ups with iron-clad terms and conditions - while some online stores continue to get it wrong

www.zdnet.com

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

Nope. The court said that the retailer couldn't impose additional restrictions (stating that the offer was only open to women) after it was deemed that the offer had been accepted. It wasn't a judgement based on a pricing error.

have to agree with this one. This is why I thought the cite was not on point.

 

[MnFish1]

From your google site:

"In contrast to Best Buy canceling the flash deal order, Marks & Spencer had to honor the pricing error on their platform. Online shoppers were able to purchase Panasonic 50 inch 3D plasma televisions for only £199 instead of £1,099, the correct item price. "

This is why this is a curiosity to me.

I think the BRS case is more like Mark & S Spencer than the Best Buy example.

By the way, Best Buy could care less what the law says unless and until ordered by a court otherwise...

PS the other interesting thing is BestBuy is headquartered in Minnesota - just as is BRS. I was only pointing out that I haven't seen it documented anywhere a 'legal requirement' to honor an ERRONEOUS price. And - since we have no clue whatsoever 1) what caused the pricing issue 2) whether there was a pricing issue (probably was) or 3) what BRS might or might not do about it. It just comes down to an interesting hypothetical discussion.

BUT - I can't picture a lot of people traveling to MN to start a small claims court case for $1000.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Nope. The court said that the retailer couldn't impose additional restrictions (stating that the offer was only open to women) after it was deemed that the offer had been accepted. It wasn't a judgement based on a pricing error.



Marks and Spencer honoring the tv price was a business decision following a customer petition; it wasn't the result of legal action. I'm sure you will try to spin this to prove me wrong though.

Neither case went to court. That's why this is a curiosity to me. It could go one way or another at court. But 99% of the time these things never reach court.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

have to agree with this one. This is why I thought the cite was not on point.

You're over analyzing. The case stands for the propisition that agreed terms are agreed terms, unable to be rescinded.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

BUT - I can't picture a lot of people traveling to MN to start a small claims court case for $1000.

Yup

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I would argue the 'unilateral mistake of fact' doctorine whereas one of the remedies is contract recession. The fact that people knew this was a too good to be true sale further's that point. (i know this is not case law..but would be willing to think this would be guiding principle.). Given there is no INTENTIONAL or WILLFUL mispricing or any case law DIRECTLY on point, I think this legal doctrine would take over.

Mistake of Fact in Contract Law

Know the two different mistakes of fact in law on LegalMatchs archives. Present your case to a business lawyer to get the best solutions for your legal problem by calling (415) 946 3744 now

www.legalmatch.com

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.

Anyway..i deal with tax law all day. Im tired of this conversation. Good luck all you eager legal begals!!

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I would argue the 'unilateral mistake of fact' doctorine whereas one of the remedies is contract recession. The fact that people knew this was a too good to be true sale further's that point. (i know this is not case law..but would be willing to think this would be guiding principle.). Given there is no INTENTIONAL or WILLFUL mispricing or any case law DIRECTLY on point, I think this legal doctrine would take over.

Mistake of Fact in Contract Law

Know the two different mistakes of fact in law on LegalMatchs archives. Present your case to a business lawyer to get the best solutions for your legal problem by calling (415) 946 3744 now

www.legalmatch.com

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.

Anyway..i deal with tax law all day. Im tired of this conversation. Good luck all you eager legal begals!!

Minnesota caselaw is not favorable to brs on unilateral mistake doctrine. You can read the post i cited earlier.

 

[MnFish1]

You're over analyzing. The case stands for the propisition that agreed terms are agreed terms, unable to be rescinded.

This is of course true - if there is a contract - the contract has to be agreed to.

In the instance (speaking generally) - of an internet pricing error, I believe (if you took the time to research it) - that the terms and conditions are binding (of the website).

Here is another example. A person posts a vulgar post on R2R - and they kick you off - because its clearly in their Terms of Service that thats not allowed. Its not like you are required to click a box 'I have read terms of service' with each Post you made'.

Isn't there an axiom in the law 'Ignorance of the law is not an excuse'?

 

[i_am_mclovin]

I would argue the 'unilateral mistake of fact' doctorine whereas one of the remedies is contract recession. The fact that people knew this was a too good to be true sale further's that point. (i know this is not case law..but would be willing to think this would be guiding principle.). Given there is no INTENTIONAL or WILLFUL mispricing or any case law DIRECTLY on point, I think this legal doctrine would take over.

Mistake of Fact in Contract Law

Know the two different mistakes of fact in law on LegalMatchs archives. Present your case to a business lawyer to get the best solutions for your legal problem by calling (415) 946 3744 now

www.legalmatch.com

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.

Anyway..i deal with tax law all day. Im tired of this conversation. Good luck all you eager legal begals!!

25 pages of discussion is pretty convincing evidence that a reasonable person knew that the pricing may be a mistake.

 

[PeterC99]

Interesting that everyone is still debating the outcome of this situation.

I believe BRS made a huge mistake by not correcting the situation sooner. The debate has taken many different positions and caused great confusion, intense legal discussion, and some bad blood.

I know this is a holiday weekend but what is this costing BRS in terms of future customer sales?

 

[madlos123]

Im just here for comedic relief