• silicon.com
• Management
• CIO Insights

By Will Sturgeon, 20 March 2003 16:33

NEWS A second City law firm has thrown its weight behind claims from disgruntled customers who say Amazon.co.uk should honour the sale of HP iPaqs which it wrongly advertised at £7.32, when the normal retail price is nearer to £300. This afternoon, Amazon.co.uk users who bought the Pocket PC handhelds have been receiving emails saying the sales have been cancelled but legal opinion seems to suggest the e-tailer might not be out the woods just yet. Yesterday law firm Beale and Company told silicon.com that courts may look favourably upon customers' claims and advised shoppers who snapped up the bargain-priced gadgets to fight their corner. While Amazon.co.uk continues to resolutely quote its small print, Nigel Miller, a partner at City law firm Fox Williams, said: "The small print on their site says: 'No contract will subsist between you and Amazon.co.uk for the sale by it to you of any product unless and until Amazon.co.uk accepts your order by email confirming that it has dispatched your product'. "However, this may not be binding on the customer if it is not sufficiently visible or if it is unfair." It is this last point which Miller suggests may be a grey area in which Amazon.co.uk could come a cropper and he believes the e-tailer may actually be better off honouring the sales at the lower price than it would be fighting individual claims and suffering the associated negative press. Miller said: “There have been a number of similar cases in the past. You can argue about the legal position but the commercial reality is that a consumer website will want to maintain its customer goodwill and it will not be cost efficient for it to fight multiple claims.” Furthermore, Beale and Company believes that if the dispute did go to court then Amazon.co.uk may find it is forced to honour the sale because of ambiguities in the wording of its confirmation email. Michael Archer, a partner at Beale and Company, wrote: "Amazon's email provides information on how 'To cancel this contract...'. It could be argued that Amazon are stating that this is acceptance of the consumer's offer, and it would be surprising if a court were to decide that no contract existed at this point."