Pixmania.ie - price error, can they charge more?

some new law came in last year that let retailers sell items below cost price. cant rember what the exact law is called. That is why we see supermarkets with very good offers!!

Think i right about this!! Please correct me if im wrong

Fare’s fair as Aer Lingus bows to consumer pressure
Sunday, April 20, 2008 - By Michael Doherty
It’s every business’s nightmare - a special offer is put up on the official company website in error, and eagle-eyed consumers promptly snap up the goods or services at rock-bottom prices.

Last Wednesday morning, more than 300 lucky customers managed to buy seats on Aer Lingus flights to the US - which would normally cost well over €1,000 each - for a mere €5. Aer Lingus quickly wrote to the customers claiming that the prices advertised on the website were wrong, and that their bookings had been cancelled.

Last Friday, after a two-day outcry, the company was forced to back down and agree to honour the bookings, albeit for seats in economy class and not business class as had been advertised. The case throws up interesting questions about the status of contracts made on the internet and the rights and obligations of consumers and businesses.

Given the exponential increase in commercial traffic on the internet in recent years, and the likelihood of more of these ‘technical hitches’, it surely cannot be long before similar cases come before the courts. The Electronic Commerce Act 2000 expressly recognises the validity of contracts formed by way of electronic communication (via the internet or e-mail, for example).

The law provides that contracts formed in this way will not be denied legal effect or enforceability, solely on the grounds that they are in electronic form or have been concluded by way of electronic communication.

The legislation does not, however, outline the manner by which contracts are to be concluded by electronic means. It simply defers to the general principles of contract law in order to determine whether a legally-binding contract has been entered into between a supplier operating through a website and a customer.

This means that the regulation of internet commerce is governed by legal principles that were defined and developed before online trading was even considered possible.

For a contract of any kind to come into existence, there must be an offer made by one party which is accepted by another, and something of value (usually money) must pass between them. In the Aer Lingus situation, the offer was made by the 300 customers when they completed the online booking form.

The company, by sending them a confirmation number, appears to have accepted the offer.

Though it seems in this case that the customers were not actually charged, it could be argued that Aer Lingus had exchanged promises with the customers and was, therefore, obliged to conclude the contract by accepting the €5.

A similar case arose some years ago involving Argos in Britain. Television sets were advertised on the company’s website for stg£2.99 rather than the intended price of stg£299. Roughly one million orders were received before the error was rectified.

As in the Aer Lingus situation, the case was settled before any court hearing, although the terms of the settlement were never published. One important difference in the Argos case was that one customer ordered almost 2,000 televisions at the knock-down price!

In that case, the company probably would have been able to argue that it was clear to the customer that a mistake had been made and the customer was being disingenuous in taking advantage of the situation. In these days of airline price wars, however, it would be harder for Aer Lingus to sustain such an argument.

Airlines frequently trumpet ‘free flights’ and ‘slashed fares’, so the offer made, while obviously generous in the extreme, may not automatically have been viewed as suspicious by the booking customers.

The lesson for businesses is that they should make it very explicit on their websites as to when an offer has been made and accepted, as well as listing the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a binding contract to exist. However, as things stand, there seems to be little hope of redress for companies in a situation like that of Aer Lingus, at least where the error is not overwhelmingly obvious to consumers. It may be that the Oireachtas should look into enacting more specific rules governing e-commerce.

In the meantime, more than 300 people can look forward to very affordable trips to the US if they choose to accept the company’s offer of economy-class seats. However, it may still be open to those customers to take legal action against the company to enforce their right to business-class seats. Now that really would be a bumpy landing for the former state carrier.

Dr Michael Doherty is a lecturer in law at the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/04/20/story32189.asp

parsi wrote: »

Aer Lingus only capitulated due to pressure from local TDs, the "chattering classes" and other groups.

They didn't capitulate on a point of law and if they weren't the local boys then it would have all died away.

Pixmania aren't local and frankly don't give a damn about Joe Duffy, Eddie Hobnob or Jockie Hooly-Row. I expect that if Pixmania had a euro for everyone who said they'd "never use them again" and subsequently did , they'd have a nice earner.

but see the difference between the aer lingues case and pixmania case is that pixmania received the money from the paypal users. that makes the contract.

Aer lingus never charged the credit cards of the people, so they had every right not to give them the flights.

I also received the refund email this morning.... Although instead of complaing about not receiving the super cheap blu ray player i went onto their site and canceled my order.

I don't think its fair to expect a company to take such a big loss on a product even if they did make an error. Yes the way they have dealt with it is not correct(very underhanded)and they should have really issued an apology email explaining that an error had been made and that they would be unable to fur fill your orders. but if it was your company what would you do?

This is not the only forum that this bargain was posted on so i would say they had a very large number of orders and it would be impossible for them to complete the orders.

For anyone who does receive the blu ray player at the posted price fair play. But for me it is just too much hassle and runs too close to the line of stealing for me. Although i did enjoy following ppl's progress and will continue to monitor the outcome.

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

and neither you or iknorr are mods so stfu.

Thanks for your educated contribution.


Edit: the other part of your reply wasnt showing up there for a min.

"by the way like you I chanced my arm by buying one,but my order was never confirmed and no money was taking so i am quite happy.Also maybe put up a post in the legal discussions forum?and see what some real legal people have to say?"

i second the legal discussions part though

Just got the email about the refund requested, spent 15 minutes on the phone to them asked where in their terms and conditions does it say they can cancel an order etc. Couldn't tell me, pointed out section 4 of their terms and conditions, where they say they use the price on the site at the time of the order. She is getting a manager to call me back.

Have to say the only reason I rang them was because of that email saying I requested a refund. If they had just said there was an error and apologised that would have be that, but for them to tell me I requested the order be cancelled, makes it different. Last time I wanted a refund from them I was waiting weeks to get a reply even.

It'll be interesting to hear what the manager has to say when he/she calls back though

I may be a cynic, but this could be some very, very effective guerrilla promotion of their site. It has generated huge traffic!

I wonder could us Paypal'ers take it up with Paypal?

Money taken, constituting contract.
Money refunded without permission, etc.

Ruby_Woo wrote: »

I thought of this also and went so far as to try raise a dispute with PayPal but couldn't as the transaction in question had already been refunded.

Ah plop!

iknorr wrote: »

I just done an Unauthorised transaction with paypal, on the bases that they will be issuing a refund.
I havent received the refund yet, is there something else i can do on paypal?

Paypals ultimate resolution is a refund AFIK

Same with me, didn't expect to get one, but when they sent the mail saying I requested a refund, that changed things. I suppose at least all the mails and phone calls couldn't happen to a nicer company. But can't help thinking that if they were in the right, they would have had a uniform response to everyone on this.