I have been browsing snowboards for a couple of days and have come across a store in Melbourne with a snowboard advertised on their site for $0.00. If I had bought that snowboard and some accessories from site and it is an error are they entitled to sell the item for the price provided after i pay?

It's a mistake, they will most likely have a disclaimer

Ah I see.

Edit: I read the Disclaimer on the site and the only part of the disclaimer that has anything to do with the purchasing of items is as of follows:
"Privacy Policy.
CompanyName goes to great lengths to ensure that all information presented on this web site is accurate. If you use any information provided by us, you do so at your own risk. CompanyName do not accept responsibility for any information you use which has a detrimental effect on your business."

Does this effect them not selling the item for that price?
Thanks in advance.

Its a mistake, let it go. Don't be such a tight arse.

I know a person who purchased a few items online, and one of the items were $0.00 he expected a email saying that the wrong amount had been charged or saying the price was wrong and he wouldnt be recieving the item. The item turned up with the other stuff.

Noobles writes...

Its a mistake, let it go. Don't be such a tight arse.

LOL!

Wow, I think I'l chuck the extra $50 in my debit card and buy the snowboard along with the bindings as I will be wanting these bindings anyway and see if the board turns up :)

If it's a small, independent store then the nice thing to do would actually be to let them know of their error.

If you were in an actual shop, and an item had a sticker on it that said $0.00, would you honestly expect the person at the counter to give it to you for free?

Of course you wouldn't.

This is an area of law that is grey to say the least. The actual posting of $0 in no way forms part of the offer and is an invitation to treat which is very different. But with the use of instant pay credit cards etc the matter is really grey there... but legally they probably don't have to give it to you... and even if it was illegal not much you can do about it since I doubt you have the money to sue to get it and go through the entire appellate structure to get the result you want.

stanard writes...

If you were in an actual shop, and an item had a sticker on it that said $0.00, would you honestly expect the person at the counter to give it to you for free?

Of course you wouldn't.

On a side note, in this circumstance they would not legally under any circumstance have to provide you the product for $0.

The problem with internet is that you can pay instantly and one could construe that this is accepting payment or perhaps you putting up an offer, and that's a matter for the courts if a case ever gets so far as to become a binding precedent.

(sorry for double post)

people do mistakes you know....

Tailz- writes...

after i pay $0.00.?

Would that be cash, cheque or credit card...?

If it's advertised for $0.00 & you "purchase" it (don't forget the GST!) & they say it's actually more, then say you didn't know/more than expected/can't afford it/whatever, & don't wish to proceed. Quite simple.

I suppose if you emailed them and asked whether the item was for sale at zero dollars, may be the decent thing for all concerned.

I have seen the instance where they ship the 0.00 - but for larger stuff or a small company they might see it

I suppose if you order and they ship it is all good

Bugger the moral issues about small companies - a bargain is a bargain!!!!!!

your not being cheap - just grabbing a bargain but doubt you would pull it off

and you could not keep them to it - the legal disclaimers cover prices being marked wrong - they still have the right to refuse supply for any good reason - and a wrong price would eb one of them......

I guess you have to ask the question, would you like someone to take advantage of your mistake, and lose hundreds of dollars because of it, or would you like someone to send you an email and let you know of the pricing mistake.

Purveyor emptor!

How much is the shipping? $799?

:)

They have no responsibility to honour the price; firstly because it's not an offer but an invitation to treat - i.e. make your own offer. Secondly if you did 'buy' it for nothing the seller is under no obligation to give you anything as no contract can be formed.

That said you can't lose anything, might as well try for it.

omano-jaku writes...

Purveyor emptor

lol

Another kind of marketing strategy :D
Get your item for real :)

.dan. writes...

They have no responsibility to honour the price; firstly because it's not an offer but an invitation to treat - i.e. make your own offer. Secondly if you did 'buy' it for nothing the seller is under no obligation to give you anything as no contract can be formed.

The offer is still formed. If he made the order along with a few other items, then paid by credit card and their system automatically debited his card for total cost of that invoice, they'd have a hard time not supplying the $0.00 item. They could take it through the courts, and that then depends on whether either party wants to do that. So you could call their bluff.

Alternatively, if you ordered only the $0.00 item, then there can't be an acceptance of payment as the card (and probably the system) won't accept $0.00.

Richie writes...

The offer is still formed

It's not until the business accepts the purchaser's offer to buy the goods - in the form of charging the credit card for example. And even if the system automatically accepts (and subsequently charges) payment the company is still well within its rights to argue that no contract has been formed for lack of consideration on the part of the buyer. That being the case they won't supply the goods because they simply aren't bound to do so - unless they're idiots and don't have a lawyer on speed dial:P

If the price was $0.01 the matter would be different, if they accepted payment of 1 cent for the product they would in all likelihood be bound to supply it. The problem is that you can't form a contract without some consideration, 1 cent would cut it, 0 cents doesn't.

In this case, if you want the goods free you have to rely on the company being dumb enough to honour an ad that they aren't bound to honour.

.dan. writes...

The problem is that you can't form a contract without some consideration, 1 cent would cut it, 0 cents doesn't.

A consideration is just that - a consideration. Contract of Sale deals are formed on a day to day basis on items that have either no set price, or an intangible price. ie. Computer sites regularly have 'add this to your cart when you purchase X item and get it free!' (Nintek come to mind, bad example!). Those are conditional offers. The price of the item is free, yet the seller is still responsible for 'billing' the order, acceptance and anything else associated with it such as warranty issues.

Now the tricky part is, it also depends on your states fair trading and POS laws. If your state defines the delivery goods on one purchase as 'the' purchase, then all the goods have to be delivered in whole or not at all, and not partially, as per the docket or invoice. If that invoice is paid in full for full delivery of the goods, the seller has to fulfil the requirements of the sale.

As I said in my original post, it all depends on calling their bluff. They aren't going start dialling their lawyer for an item that that isn' worth that much.

Tailz- writes...

I have been browsing snowboards for a couple of days and have come across a store in Melbourne with a snowboard advertised on their site for $0.00. If I had bought that snowboard and some accessories from site and it is an error are they entitled to sell the item for the price provided after i pay?

Sooooo

Where is the link? So we can buy the board with $

E&OE

is all that is needed somewhere on the site … then the deal is NO DEAL

David V Smith writes...

E&OE

is all that is needed somewhere on the site … then the deal is NO DEAL

Dell had an E&OE statement, they still paid out, so your statement is incorrect.

.dan. writes...

Secondly if you did 'buy' it for nothing the seller is under no obligation to give you anything as no contract can be formed.

Spot on. There is no consideration for the board in the contract. Ergo, no contract, no obligation.

Point it out to them, they might give you a discount.

Master of Sinanju writes...

Point it out to them, they might give you a discount.

Yeah that's the best way to go, they may feel indebted to you, trying to scam them for a free board isn't going to make them wanna play ball.

Richie writes...

they still paid out

That's cause they're a massive company selling their own goods, it's worth more to them to honour the mistaken price than to not. Whereas a small snowboarding/outdoor type company most likely won't or rather can't afford to.

Dan is right in saying that if its 0 dollars there is no consideration and then there is no contract. Buy one get one free deals are a little different though. I could see how problems would arise if there was multiple items being purchased for some amoutn of money and one of those items came under being free.

To put it simply to date I don't think there has been any court decision over electronic communication in regards to offers an acceptance over the internet. It has to date just sorted itself out. The reason for this is that no one would take things like this to court until it involved a very large sum of money, in which you would probably exchange real world contact information.

Even if the OP did feel wronged, it could cost him a substantial amount of time and money, much more then the $0 is worth. Most people would thus then not persue this.

No decision = we can't provide a determination but most likely the seller would not be bound unless a court rules specifically that they would be. It is also a further problem when different jurisdictions are involved.

There is no legislation that really covers this. The electronic transaction legislation more deals with electronic signatures etc.

__RavErz__ writes...

Buy one get one free deals are a little different though. I could see how problems would arise if there was multiple items being purchased for some amoutn of money and one of those items came under being free.

Hmm, possibly, though I can't imagine that where the transaction for the $0 snowboard alone fails for lack of consideration, simply buying a pair of gloves (say) for $5 simultaneously would make the problem disappear.

If you offered someone $5 for a pair of gloves and a snowboard and they accepted that would be fine, as the consideration expressly applies to both items i.e. you're not paying $2.50 for each, you're paying $5 for the two items together.

In the case of internet transactions you have all the items listed (generally) and a subtotal which you pay. I think this means that each item is supported by individual consideration, rather than an overarching payment for multiple items. Because it is broken down in this sense, I think your payment of $5 for the gloves and board is broken down to $5 for the gloves and nothing for the board and thus you still have a consideration problem.

This may be presumptuous of me of course, as I think you correctly point out, it is an area of law that is yet to be tested, or at least tested thoroughly. I would imagine however that pre-existing contractual principles could be readily supplanted to this context.

Sorry to have hijacked this highly exciting, possibility of a bargain of a lifetime and turned into a debate about contract law. It excites me, though I'm sure this is like the AGL ad and everyone is rolling their eyes at me:P

Edit: Just on buy one get one free type offers, they are, I think different to the circumstance here, as the price is explicitly stated as being $0. If you say I'll give you X free if you buy Y, then the consideration of Y is what makes the provision of X binding. X is in this circumstance supported by valuable consideration (that being either the payment for Y or in the alternative entering into the agreement to buy Y - in this sense it might be construed as a collateral contract). If you pay $0 for an item there is no quid pro quo, there needs to be some transaction between the parties for an enforceable contract to be formed and I don't think that is possible in this circumstance.

.dan. writes...

I think your payment of $5 for the gloves and board is broken down to $5 for the gloves and nothing for the board and thus you still have a consideration problem.

But that would come down to a question of law then, but probably a silly one at that. When you move consideration to someone but have been provided an itemised list, does that mean you are providing consideration for every item on that list individually, or the list as a whole. If it is individual simply buying 200 items at Woolworths (it is itemised on screen) would mean that someone would be entering into 200 seperate contracts which seems a little odd.

Edit: Just on buy one get one free type offers, they are, I think different to the circumstance here, as the price is explicitly stated as being $0. If you say I'll give you X free if you buy Y, then the consideration of Y is what makes the provision of X binding. X is in this circumstance supported by valuable consideration (that being either the payment for Y or in the alternative entering into the agreement to buy Y - in this sense it might be construed as a collateral contract). If you pay $0 for an item there is no quid pro quo, there needs to be some transaction between the parties for an enforceable contract to be formed and I don't think that is possible in this circumstance.

Yea I understood it was little relevance to the sitation. Hmm wonder if a buy one get one free could be classes as a collateral contract. The nature of the words don't sound like it was one. If you were to say though I will give you this tomato sauce bottle free provided you enter into a contract with me to buy a different tomato sauce bottle, then this would be a collateral contract. But to say that by buying this tomato sauce bottle we will give you one free, that, to me, does not seem to be like a collateral contract. Perhaps consideration is merely for both since the law wouldn't recognise the RRP but rather that the consideration is just for both bottles.

Good ol' whirlpool legal advice.

so did you get the board? did you tell them about it and get a discount on something?

tell us!!! ;-)

__RavErz__ writes...

Hmm wonder if a buy one get one free could be classes as a collateral contract.

Probably not, I just mentioned it as it might be another way of of arguing consideration is present if payment for X wasn't considered sufficient consideration for Y - i.e. the consideration in this case would be entering into the main agreement.

If it is individual simply buying 200 items at Woolworths (it is itemised on screen) would mean that someone would be entering into 200 seperate contracts which seems a little odd.

Yeah it does seem a bit strange, although I think that being able to take one item back and receiving reimbursement for that single item alone would be firm(ish) grounds to argue that each item is treated individually. I'm sure there would be a case regarding this sort of thing, if not here then probably in the UK or possibly US. I might have a look into it if I get some (extensive) free time.

~Doug~ writes...

Good ol' whirlpool legal advice.

Haha, I suppose I should say IANAL at this point:P

.dan. writes...

Yeah it does seem a bit strange, although I think that being able to take one item back and receiving reimbursement for that single item alone would be firm(ish) grounds to argue that each item is treated individually. I'm sure there would be a case regarding this sort of thing, if not here then probably in the UK or possibly US. I might have a look into it if I get some (extensive) free time.

But that is Woolworths company policy, not that they are required to by law if they change your mind. Think about how the law works. If you buy a ton of grain and 30% is defective and you sue then you only get damages for the 30%, but that 30% is not a seperate contract. Just as buying 3 tomato sauce bottles is probably not 3 seperate contracts but one contract to buy all of them together. The cashier doesn't say "that is 1.51 for item A, 2.29 for Item B" they just say "that will be 51.55" for the entire lot. This seems to indicate a single contract.

__RavErz__ writes...

"that is 1.51 for item A, 2.29 for Item B"

They don't say that because it isn't practical to do so, you may be right that in purchasing multiple goods in a single transaction you aren't entering into multiple contracts - however I still think the consideration problem exists. In that, buying a pair of gloves for $5 with your board for $0 doesn't mean that you avoid any consideration problem for the board. Maybe it does, as I haven't seen any authority to suggest it goes one way or the other, but intuitively I can't see that it would.

.dan. writes...

however I still think the consideration problem exists. In that, buying a pair of gloves for $5 with your board for $0 doesn't mean that you avoid any consideration problem for the board.

Well that is the only question of law in this matter then as far as I can see.

Even if the consideration problem is avoided, going back to offer and acceptance, that could be a problem. I suppose though an offer and acceptance could be automated by a machine for the company and therefore merely paying and having that machine (the computer server etc) accept on the company's behalf is indicative of acceptance.

Nah I didnt end up ordering, sorry guys, I was going ot but they ran out of the stock in the bindings I wanted to order :(

Noobles writes...

Don't be such a tight arse.

Yeah.

You will probably have to go through a lot more effort than it is worth, and you're ripping off a merchant who had to pay for the item regardless of the mistake on the website.

Just inform them of the mistake and move on with your life -- That's what I'd do in this scenario.

J.

..One step ahead of ya mate.

Goodo.

J.

there's a pc store here in wollongong that sometimes lists their prices as $0.00 with a line through it.

and next to it, it saids **special!!**

although the store is known to make up prices as you come in to ask how much the 'special' is.

so yeah, point of the rant is, stores sometimes do this to get you in to the store to check it out or what ever.

or maybe its just a typo.

your choice. id rather just email them and tell them about the error. :)

Add it to the shopping basket & see what it totals at the check-out.