Apple Online Education blooper

Thirdfox

This is not a post asking for advice - I do not intend to take legal action on the basis on any discussion here

and I've cleared this up with hullaballoo first :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054896343

So...

Apple have an online student offer of a digital SLR camera reducing the price of a €860 camera down to €89. Someone buys a camera at that price and gets an invoice. (It seems that there has been a pricing error - but they acknowledge that there was a €771 discount on the invoice)

Apple subsequently state that their cameras are out of stock (and that the camera was discontinued - a lie since Olympus was contacted and they confirmed that the camera was a current model) and therefore unable to supply them (on the website it indicated that they were ready to ship within 24 hours ) stating that 2.6 in their terms and conditions allows them to do so:

" 2.6 Whilst we will make every effort to supply you with the Products listed on the Order Confirmation, there may be occasions where we are unable to supply these Products * In such circumstances we will contact you to inform you and may suggest alternative Products that you might wish to purchase. If you do not accept our suggestions then we will cancel your Order in relation to those Products we cannot supply and repay you any money that you may have paid to us in respect of those Products. Repayment of such monies will be the extent of our liability to you if we are unable to deliver to you the Products you have ordered."

* Btw Apple subsequently changed their terms and conditions to include "because, for example, such Products are no longer being manufactured or we are unable to source relevant components."

A few questions.... (remember I am not asking for legal advice!) I just found this to be quite interesting after reading a tiny bit of McDermott's book on Contracts:

Is the contract enforcable between Apple and the purchaser?

If a misrepresentation has been made i.e. stating that products were ready to ship within 24 hours - can one claim damages?

Does the additional clause included in Apple's 2.6 change the contract retrospectively?

Lastly shouldn't Apple just owned up that they made a pricing error and apologise? No-one would have seeked to fight with them then! Instead they play the "out of stock" game *sigh*.

---

This all happened a few months ago (before Christmas) and I found it a fun legal exercise... me v. Apple - but does anyone else have opinions on what seems to be quite a grey area of law?

One more time... I am not looking for advice... if I wanted to sue them I would have done so... wouldn't that be funny Me v. Apple [2006] IR 1

Kingkong

My two cent - this aint legal advice just an opinion

First figure out under what durestriction the purchase falls under.

As far as I can make out you purchased the goods at the agreed price. The offer was accepted.

Apple i reckon would have little ground to stand on under irish law anyway. They have to hounor the contract that has been formed. The terms and conditions agrument they are putting up is weak. If they want to replace the product with a different one they usual can with your consent. The catch is it should be of equal or greater value. They cant use this clause to recind the contract I think.

Remember your probably talking to a supervisor who is chancing there arm there no legal expert and will tell you anything to not honour the transaction. Id go with the breaching of the sales of goods act angle.

Time Magazine

This is not legal advice but my opinion.

Thirdfox

^^^ Huh?

Reku

The way I see it is:
If no money has yet exchanged hands then they are under no legal obligation to sell the camera to you, merely that if they do, due to the reduced price being on the invoice (An invoice is considered a contract, it's one of the few documents you cannot put E&OE on) they must sell it to you at the reduced price.
If money has exchanged hands then both parties are now subject to a contract, you have fulfilled your part by paying the amount they have requested for the product, now they must fulfill their part by supplying the product at the earliest time possible.

Since the model of camera is still in production I'd say 2.6 is moot as they are able to supply the product, they just don't want to.