NEWS
Angry customers have rounded on Apple over its handling of cancelled sales of a digital camera bought on the company's website, as exposed by silicon.com.
While Apple remains tight-lipped on the debacle, aggrieved customers have been quick to speak out about the company's failure to deal with the situation effectively.
Many have criticised the fact Apple took payment for the items and in some cases took almost a week to refund the money. This is despite the fact Apple claimed it didn't have the stock and would not be able to honour the orders at any point when cancelling the sales.
The fact Apple still offered the same camera elsewhere on its site led many to believe the company had actually cancelled the sales because the offer price was a blunder. Some customers claim Apple staff even told them the camera was no longer manufactured.
silicon.com reader Henry Carey said: "Not only did we get a confirmation email we also had payment taken. If that's not a deal-sealer then someone please tell me what is."
In cases such as this the initial offer and subsequent order confirmation by the retailer are not necessarily binding, depending on terms and conditions, according to legal experts. Apple's terms and conditions state the sale is not confirmed until payment has been taken and the transaction confirmed.
In this instance the sales were cancelled after money was taken but before the sales, rather than the initial order, had been confirmed.
So while Apple may legally be on firm footing, aggrieved customers believe the way the company has handled the "fiasco" is certainly far from sound.
Carey added: "Apple's customer services told so many different stories to people over a 24-hour period that it's impossible to ever know what the truth of this whole fiasco actually is."
Another reader, who chose to remain anonymous, said: "The total stonewalling by Apple is the worst thing."
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
The terms are pretty clear. Apple are saying that the camera is 'No longer Available' for them to supply. If we can find them some they will have to supply as they are bound to 'make every effort to supply' as the 'terms and conditions together with your Order Confirmation constitute the Contract.' They are trying to make out theres no one to supply them. So if anyone has about 1000 olympus e1 available please can you contact apple. Even if you have a few contact them so they can make good on all the orders they can.
2. Mike van Lammeren
Waaa waaa! An obvious pricing mistake was made and I took advantage of it. Unfortunately, the company noticed in time and cancelled my order. Waaa waaa! I want a pony!
3. anonymous
Are they sure that the amount was actually charged to the card and not just "authorized"? Typically a card will get authorized for the amount before its actually charged. The charge does not take place till the item actually ships out. Perhaps Apple has other policies and procedures in place, but this is what I understand to be pretty much the normal procedure for dealing with orders.
4. anonymous
Crooks trying to take advantage of an obvious pricing error is a "fiasco" for Apple? How about a different headline: "Scam Artists Try to Gouge Apple Over of Pricing Error"?
(Ed note. Putting aside the fact the suggested headline is grammatically incorrect, we're not sure nearly £100 during the January sales, when the camera was sold only through the education site at that price, at a time when prices of digital cameras are falling rapidly really is such an "obvious" pricing errror? And either way, Apple's handling of the blunder, rather than the initial mistake is the issue drawing the greatest fire. Dare we suggest your '@mac.com' email address suggests you're looking at this with too little objectivity?)
5. Rob Voase
Apple are within their rights clearly. But there is no arguing that the company has handled it's customers poorly. A consistent story stating that it was a simple pricing error would have been fine as precedents have been set (e.g. Amazon recently).
So is it a fiasco? Not really. Is it bad customer service and slightly amateurish? Definitely.
Apple advocates need to be less dogmatic, and Silicon slightly less hysterical...
6. Mark Allen
Why can't someone take this up with Trading Standards? Even a cursory reading of what you can find on contract law suggests that contracts were formed between Apple & its customers, especially when confirmations were issued, and even more so when money was taken. It's about time that "fiascos" such as these are recognised for what they are -- real contracts to sell & buy under normal trading conditions. It is surely only the seller's responsibility & risk to state a correct offer price? Suggesting that the buyer, in recognising a bargain, may be acting improperly is outrageous. Cabeat emptor indeed!!
7. Mark Allen
Sorry, should have said "Caveat emptor"
8. Ken Munn
Silicon.com story out-of-nothing fiasco.
What's up, guys? Never dropped a brick yourselves?
9. Mark SPLINTER
your headline, as usual, is misleading. i actually thought this was a new, interesting, important story. my email address is not @mac.com. I suggest this: "Apple in confusion after small ecommerce error"
or perhaps:
"World media blow another Apple story out of proportion"
10. Mike Oldman
Procedures at Apple need updating: Not difficult to check electronically any price less than cost and require authorisation at a higher level. Until this is done website shows "POA".
Apple should honour the orders; two thirds off is not an obviously wrong price at January sale time!
AND - NO, I haven't ordered one!
11. Colin Boys
Surely it is a simple case of contract law.
The law based upon the events constitute a contract.
The law of the land surely overrides any company conditions!
Simple case of Contract made Apple should supply.
There are I believe enough precedents already in law on this issue that covers this.
12. anonymous
Crooks trying to take advantage of an obvious pricing error is a "fiasco" for Apple? How about a different headline: "Scam Artists Try to Gouge Apple Over of Pricing Error"?