By Will Sturgeon, 4 January 2006 15:45
NEWS
Apple appears to have become the latest firm to offer goods online at the wrong price and subsequently refuse to honour the sales.
A number of customers shopping for a great bargain in the January sales thought they had found just that when they saw an Olympus digital camera advertised for £98.70 on Apple's online Education store.
The camera, which Apple claimed was in stock and ready to ship within 24 hours at that price, normally retails for around £600.
However, one unhappy shopper has contacted silicon.com to say Apple subsequently reneged on an email confirmation of his order - which even confirmed a £420 discount - claiming the sale had been cancelled "as the product is no longer available".
But the customer told silicon.com he later found the same item - an Olympus E-1 Digital SLR - available elsewhere on the Apple website, closer to its normal, far higher price, leading him to believe his order had in fact been cancelled because Apple was advertising it at the wrong price.
Apple remains tight-lipped on the controversy and has failed to respond to enquiries from silicon.com about the cancelled sales or the validity of the original offer.
In the past, companies have hidden behind a defence which claimed customers had bought in 'bad faith', evidenced by the fact they often attempted to buy dozens of the wrongly priced items.
However, the silicon.com reader in this case said he had not attempted to capitalise on the mistake as he had only ordered one of the item. He believed it may have been a genuine offer with companies slashing prices during the sales and the cost of digital cameras falling sharply in recent months.
And he wasn't alone. A number of members of the website MoneySavingExpert.com also took Apple up on the offer in good faith, though some others seemed to know the offer may have been too good to be true.
One posting on the community site, which shares information on price discrepancies and bargains alike, reads: "It seems a lot like a mis-price as it is still listed at £600+ on their main site, but it is worth a go just in case it is some sort of mega promo for schools."
Another member wrote: "I'm just about to buy two. One for me and one for eBay", echoing a number of other postings which suggested the auction site was going to be the first port of call.
Other members pointed out that multiple orders were the very thing which would alert Apple to any potential mistake.
In 2003 Amazon.co.uk refused to honour a mistake on its site which saw Compaq handheld computers advertised at £7.32. Later that same year Thai Airways controversially refused to make good on the sale of flights to Bangkok for £111.
In 1999 Argos was caught out advertising televisions for £3. In September 2005 the blundering retailer repeated the error with a TV advertised for 49p. In both cases Argos refused to honour the sales.
Plus: Read our leader on Apple's camera pricing blunder.
Comments
There are 18 comments. Join the discussion
1. henry carey
cheers for carrying this story. I too ordered this camera from apple only to have the order cancelled.What was more alarming was the shocking display of incompetence that I was shown when i contacted customer services by telephone for an explanation. It was obvious that the person didnt have a clue what they where supposed to say in relation to this issue so i got a mumbled 'the camera isn't made anymore' .... apple have done themselves no favours with me.
2. anonymous
What is the legal stance in falsely advertising goods at incorrect prices, just to lure customers to your on-line shop?
3. John Chapman
It was a lucky escape. Had your reader purchased the camera and had a problem under warranty Apple would simply told the customer to contact the manufacter. Apple's policy is that they categorically do not support third party products under warranty. I purchased a Hermstedt ADSL modem in July (05) which went down on Boxing Day. Apple refused to support or replace it stating I must deal direct with Hermstedt. This contravenes UK consumer legislation and I have written to Apple to inform them that unless the matter is resolved it will go to court. To date I have heard nothing from them....
4. anonymous
Unless I am completely mistaken, all sales come under the legal heading of offer and acceptance. Therefore the purchaser offers a sum of money for goods and the seller can then accept or reject the offer. If the purchaser has received an acceptance of his offer e.g. £10 for a £600 camera, then that acceptance is legal and binding. However, Apple may dispute what constitutes an acceptance.
If there is no acceptance i.e. the offer is rejected, then there is no sale. However, sellers may make a goodwill jesture although there is no legal compulsion to do so.
5. Peter Hindley
Kodak did a similar thing a few years ago; taking orders for a camera which should have sold at £299 for £99. Orders were subsequently cancelled, but later those customers were contacted and allowed to buy at £99 - Apple take note
6. Stefan Stanislawski
I am not a lawyer but I believe that the Law is very clear about this and consumers should pursue Apple through their local small claims court and also complain to the office of fair trading. This type of behaviour is very poor. I recently bought Quicktime Pro upgrade to make videos for my new iPOd and they software did not work properly whereas a download from the web did. I explained all this to Apple and did get a refund despite their stated policy of no refunds (not legal surely for defective product) but only after I had to explain what I did to tech support and they charged me for the time on the phone! If Apple were a local market trader I think the local Council would have revoked their Licence by now. I do like my iPod but if only the Apple organisation matched the brand I would be much happier.
7. Karen Challinor
Remember Hoover offering flights ?
8. John H Woods
Like Stefan, IANAL, but I suspect he is wrong about whether the 'law is very clear'. It seems to me that contract law does not necessarily apply to mispricing because the displayed price may be considered an 'invitation to treat' rather than a formal offer, the acceptance of which would form a contract. (However, receiving a confirmatory email confirming the huge discount might well be considered formalising the contract, even if written by a software bot).
The main protection customers have against mispricing is not contract law but consumer law --- this should discourage suppliers from pricing products in a misleading way in order to increase sales. It does not automatically entitle a customer to purchase a product at a price which has been mistakenly applied.
Perhaps a real lawyer might like to comment? It doesn't look like these sorts of issues are going to disappear, so maybe we need new statute law.
... John
9. Bluesboy
I always thought that the price ticket was (in legal terms) "an invitation to treat".
This means that goods are offered for sale and the price ticket is an indication that an offer at that price would be acceptable.
The vendor does not have to accept that offer and is under no obligation to sell it to the offerer (or to anyone).
However I'm not sure what the situation is in contract terms if the offer is accepted.
10. henry carey
what i dont think was fully explained was that apple then set about taking payment from those who paid by debit cards and even those who paid by credit cards still find that the tranacation is still in limbo since apple havent as yet reimbursed the payment.
so not only did we get a confirmation email we also had payment taken ..if that not a dela sealer then someone please tell me what is.
apple then told so many different stories to people over a 24 hour period when thier customer services was phoned that it would be impossible to ever know what the truth of this whol fiasco actually is.
bad apples ..wrotten bad apples comes to mind.
11. Mark SPLINTER
the shop website is an invitation to treat, not an offer. The customer makes an offer. The shop can then accept or reject that. Sounds like in this case they really accepted, but maybe have some expensive legalese to back them up.
Why this couldn't have been included in the article is beyond me.
12. Roger Browne
Time for someone to test their resolve in the corts?
We need case law!
13. anonymous
How long does it take apple to change a price field? This offer was online from 8am until 6pm, apple churning out acknowledgements and order confirmations, debiting money or reserving. If a genuine offer and they simply ran out what sort of stock control is that?
14. anonymous
I too purchased this product. (paying by debit card) I got an acknowledgement email, then a confirmation of order email, which according to the terms and conditions I agreed to at the time (these changed 4 days later) formed a contract. I'm not certain as some are saying, that the price was a ploy for customers, as it was January sale time and an older model. The total stonewalling by Aplle is the worst thing. No correspondence except an email 5 days later saying the order was on hold until they cancel it??
The offer at the displayed price was continuous for at least 5 days, again making it look more like a genuine price than a mistake?
Also, for those who paid by debit card who had moey actually taken from their accounts and not returned for days, this made New Year a very uncertain time financially, especially as most of us are students.
15. G L
Apple SNEAKILY changed their Terms + Conditions to include missprices,after they sent cancellation emails.
16. anonymous
I am also affected by this problem. The worst thing being they've messed up with refunding our money. Not only did they take our money with no intention of supplying the camera. They've had it a week now and still not sorted out the problem. They seem to ignore the fact they've taken our money and are refusing to even listen to my complaint now.
17. MaGicDust
I ordered this camera as well on the 29th. Order canceled and still no refund till today, the 5th of January. Apple had my money for a week already and yet still no words from them about the refund or apology of any sort. To be honest, they didn't even say why my ordered was canceled in the cancelation e-mail... Later got to know from them that the product is no longer manufactured, but according to most people who contacted Olympus, they said the camera is still readily available from them and mentioned a list of distributers in the UK which have them. APPLE, you could at least tell the truth if you mispriced the item! Apple really sucks down right to the bottom... Business ethics? = 0
18. anonymous
There are three tests for a contract.
First: Offer and Acceptance
The ticket price is an invitation to treat. The offer comes from the buyer. The acceptance comes from Apple. Everyone who received an acceptance e-mail from Apple passes the first test.
Second: Consideration (or money)
Did money change hands? Many are saying their credit or debit card was charged and not refunded (yet). So, for these the second test is passed.
Third: Intention to Enforce.
I think Apple may be relying on everyone surrendering to the big corporation. The first step is a letter to their legal department stating the requirement for Apple to provide "specific performance" of the contract - not asking for a refund - with a copy to the local trading standards officer. Then you are into solicitors' fees.
Good luck.