"This week we have seen yet another pricing blunder on the web... "
... so began a silicon.com leader written back in 2003 which cited the likes of Amazon, Argos and Thai Airways who have all sold goods or services online, only to later renege on the deal claiming they had made a mistake with the price.
Back then we asked how these companies had been allowed to get away with this and had escaped censure by anybody for failing to learn from others' mistakes.
Two years on we've seen Argos repeat its blunder and yesterday we saw Apple refuse to honour sales of a digital camera advertised at just under £100 which normally retails at closer to £600.
Despite Apple sending out a confirmation email, which even acknowledged a discount of £420, the company subsequently informed shoppers they wouldn't be receiving their cameras.
There are of course those shoppers who thought it a mistake but still looked to exploit it but there are also those who, during the January sales, when digital camera prices are falling sharply, will be forgiven for thinking this was a great bargain rather than blunder.
Whatever their reasons for buying, these customers were told the item was no longer available. Apple has since offered little else by way of an explanation - as is so often its way - in the face of enquiries from silicon.com.
Perhaps, albeit unlikely, there really were a limited number of cameras at that price, which sold out fast and the blunder here isn't with a mistake in pricing but rather with sending out confirmation emails to customers when the company couldn't make good on its word and subsequently failing to remove an out-of-stock item from its website.
Either way - and our money is still on it being a pricing blunder - it's a mistake and one which undermines the credibility of online shopping when handled badly.
Apple needs to realise it doesn't have a divine right to avoid criticism - and must explain why this happened and exactly why customers who were told they had bought a bargain have now been sold a pitiful excuse.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Lynn S
I don't think it is buying in "bad faith" if you see a company like Apple finally offering the consumer a discounted deal. I for one, saw the offer and attempted to purchase more than one camera. It is about time someone gave Apple a run for their money. They are such a money making machine anyway - purposely building their products so only their leads and cables fit - hence providing them with the ideal opportunity to artifically inflate the prices of the afore mentioned cables.
If I ever get the opportunity to make some money out of Apple, I will grab it with both hands!
2. David
Not sure what you are talking about Lynn. This comment has little to do with the actual story itself. The story relates to companies and their commitment to sale in an e-tail environment. Try keeping your posts to what is actually relevant to the story.
Oh, and I don't really know what cables you are talking about, but as a Mac user I have never had to by Apple specific cables to get anything working. USB/Firewire are all standards that Apple adheres to, if not contributes to the development of. Apple have always been at the front of the line in terms of using standards based hardware/software. Microsoft could learn a lesson in this regard.
3. henry carey
what this article failed to mention is that peole are still out of pocket ... credit cards and debit cards still havent been reimbursed.
My credit card still shows this as a transaction pending. even though its many mnay hours since apple cancelled the orders.
apples failure to discuss this matter openly with anyone surely shows that they have something to hide. Is it the case that all they can actually say is yes they have acted wrong and the orders will have to stand. hence the silence.
4. Alan Ainsworth
In my youth when I was doing my Chartered secreatary studies I was reliably informed that the price ticket displayed was NOT the offer side of the offer-and-acceptance test of a contract. Instead it had been held by the Courts that it was an "invitation to treat". So, there appears to be no Liability on Apple to supply at the ticket price.
However, my guess is that the receipt of a confirmation e-mail in response to the offer to buy constitutes acceptance. Thus, the first test of a contract is fulfilled.
The second test - consideration - was presumably fulfilled by the buyer providing credit or debit card details. The third -intention to enforce - is now up to the buyer.
Good luck all you lucky buyers with an apparently enforceable contract.