Apple Sued Over Bargain Price Mishap

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
At some point in life, everyone runs across a deal too good to be true. If the order goes through...good for you. If the $1,600 order you got for $35 doesn't go through...you sue? :(

"I ordered a bunch of stuff," said Crouchley, impressed by the discounts. "I spent about $35 and got about $1600 worth of gear, so I was pretty happy with myself then." After placing his order, Crouchley got a confirmation email saying that some products had already been shipped and others saying that his credit card had been charged for his purchases.
Click to expand...
 
the article says that he contacted customer support to double check that the prices were genuine....the customer service rep told him they were the correct prices. So looks like he may have something then.
 
That site even says that if you get an obviously wrong deal, you the consumer do have to pay the higher price! (Their example is "If you paid $100 for a $110 pair of shoes you don’t have an obligation to pay the extra $10, but if you paid $99 for a TV that was supposed to be $999 then you need to pay the extra.")
 
"He was told that Apple would honour the part of the order that had already shipped, but intercepted the courier package instead. "

Pretty sure he's got a case.
 
I think the part where they shipped, then recalled the shipment before it was delivered is a bit much.

I've always hated that eTailers are held to a completely different standard than B&M stores when it comes to price mistakes.
 
Read my link, they don't. In New Zealand, they don't have to honor an obviously-wrong price *EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION*

From the link, if you go to a B&M store, and get a deal on a TV - $99 for what should be a $999 TV - pay and get it home; the store can still insist that you pay the extra $900.

To me, this makes sense. 10%, 20%, even down to 50% off is one thing; but when you know the price is wrong at 90%+ off, you're choosing to take advantage of the business; it's not the business taking advantage of you when they ask you to pay fair price.

And in this case, Apple could under New Zealand law insist that he pay the right price for what he did get. They're just saying "what didn't make it to you you don't get, but we'll fully refund."

Why do people find perverse entitlement with ripping a company off, then getting righteously indignant when the company doesn't want to be ripped off?
 
CharonPDX said:
Why do people find perverse entitlement with ripping a company off, then getting righteously indignant when the company doesn't want to be ripped off?
Click to expand...

By the looks of it, he doesn't have anything to lose.
 
CharonPDX said:
Why do people find perverse entitlement with ripping a company off, then getting righteously indignant when the company doesn't want to be ripped off?
Click to expand...

According to the news report he contacted a CSR because he thought the deals were too good to be true, and the CSR confirmed that yes the prices were correct. They went back on their word "twice". I would feel pretty entitled at that point.
 
CharonPDX said:
Read my link, they don't. In New Zealand, they don't have to honor an obviously-wrong price *EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION*

From the link, if you go to a B&M store, and get a deal on a TV - $99 for what should be a $999 TV - pay and get it home; the store can still insist that you pay the extra $900.

To me, this makes sense. 10%, 20%, even down to 50% off is one thing; but when you know the price is wrong at 90%+ off, you're choosing to take advantage of the business; it's not the business taking advantage of you when they ask you to pay fair price.

And in this case, Apple could under New Zealand law insist that he pay the right price for what he did get. They're just saying "what didn't make it to you you don't get, but we'll fully refund."

Why do people find perverse entitlement with ripping a company off, then getting righteously indignant when the company doesn't want to be ripped off?
Click to expand...
Its one thing if he just assumed it. But it's another if he called in to confirm it and was told that it was good.

"So I was spewing. I said to [the Apple representative]: this is not on, I phoned you, your call center assured me that you'd honour that order," Crouchley explained.
Click to expand...

That's like having a contract, then the person you made a contract with said whoops, forgot to put this in.
 
BTW, I'm not saying he should be suing. Just saying that Apple is being dicky about it. If I were apple, 'd probably just find the call, get the person responsible, and deduct t from his pay, since it was his mistake. Unless others were involved... like the manager was asked and then gave the green light.
 
If he has proof that Apple representatives confirmed it, hey, great, he has a chance. I'm just thinking this is a case of "I called (no recordings) and did a web chat (no screenshots) and they said it was legit!"

I'd also like to see what his wording was... "Are the prices on the website accurate?" "Yes, sir." "Okay, thanks." If he didn't actually alert them to the possible error, just a simple "are they correct", then that's not compelling to me. Random call center drones aren't going to be inquisitive, they aren't going to actually log on to check (and if they did, likely not the country-specific one.) Sorry, I don't (ever) feel sorry for any of the "WAAAAH! I didn't get 99% off that was obviously wrong!" people.
 
Apple rips off their customers all the time. Don't feel sorry for them if they get ripped off once in a while.
 
Teenk9 said:
Apple rips off their customers all the time. Don't feel sorry for them if they get ripped off once in a while.
Click to expand...

Ah, the logic...

It would be one thing if Apple sold things way below price, and didn't notice it (or did nothing about it.) "Hah! I got $1600 worth of stuff from Apple for $35!"

But they did notice, and they did the simplest things within their power to avoid the loss. But they did *NOT* do "everything" within their power, as New Zealand law allows them to recoup the missed income. I don't feel "sorry" for them for the loss they DID sustain, I feel annoyance/contempt toward the numbnut who feels it necessary to sue to get something he doesn't deserve.
 
CharonPDX said:
Why do people find perverse entitlement with ripping a company off, then getting righteously indignant when the company doesn't want to be ripped off?
Click to expand...

Because companies never rip-off consumers or, through incompetence or sheer greed, force them to pay more than what they owe without ever admitting their mistake.


Those poor, poor companies.



And why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be this adamant in defending the company if it wasn't Apple?
 
Raudulfr said:
Because companies never rip-off consumers or, through incompetence or sheer greed, force them to pay more than what they owe without ever admitting their mistake.


Those poor, poor companies.



And why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be this adamant in defending the company if it wasn't Apple?
Click to expand...

oh...just because you think a company is ripping you off means you doesnt mean you have do the same?....The person who put the wrong price is most probably already getting the shits. So, think not of the company but the individual. Karma will come around and bit your stingy arse one day.
 
If he can indeed prove that an Apple rep told him the price was genuine then he should get all his order at that price. At that point in time an apple representative, acting on behalf of the whole company said yes that is the price we are selling it at, yes you may purchase at that price. At that point it should be considered the company not honouring a contract.
 
IMO, he's got no leg to stand on regardless of whether he called in for confirmation or not.

Had he read the "Sales Policy" in the little link at the bottom of the page, he'd find that Apple (like MOST other smart online retailers) has wording in it to prevent against typographical errors... specifically this:
23.1 Apple is not responsible for typographic errors.
Click to expand...
and then there's these clauses that may also apply (emphasis is mine):
5.5 By placing an Order, you make an offer to us to purchase the Products you have selected on these terms and conditions. We may or may not accept your offer at our discretion. If we accept your Order, we will notify you of our acceptance by issuing an Order Confirmation. We will send your Order Confirmation to you by email. If you have not supplied an e-mail address we will fax or post the Order Confirmation to you. The Order Confirmation will be effective on sending.
Click to expand...
and:
9.1 The Apple Store endeavours to offer you competitive prices on current Apple products. Apple reserves the right to change prices for products displayed at the Apple Store at any time.
Click to expand...

The fact that he received confirmation of the prices may just mean that the customer service rep he spoke to merely agreed that's the same price they saw on the website... sorta like "Yes sir, that's the same price I see on the website, so it must be correct"... I have a feeling said customer service rep could not confirm 100% whether that price was actually supposed to be that way. And after all, Apple has a clause in their sales policy for that too that may possibly apply:
23.3 No Apple employee or agent has the authority to vary any of the Apple Store's policies or the terms and conditions governing any sale.
Click to expand...
meaning said customer service rep can't guarantee the prices listed because as above, prices might change at any time, and Apple is not liable for typos.

So, dunno if the guy just didn't see the policy, it's still there and still applies. Ignorance isn't a defense.

For the record, I copied these phrases from NZ's sales policy.
 
CharonPDX said:
Um, yeah. If he has proof of being confirmed, then good for him.

But when he posts "And so I thought: this can't be right, there's something incorrect here", then is shocked *SHOCKED* that the order gets cancelled...

A couple sources say that stores in New Zealand can *NOT* be forced to hold to obviously incorrect prices. http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/consumer/bts/Pages/Promisesabouttheprice.aspx
Click to expand...

that's negated if the order is confirmed as shipped, the store confirms the price is correct, and you're charged
 
Carbon_Rod said:
IMO, he's got no leg to stand on regardless of whether he called in for confirmation or not.

Had he read the "Sales Policy" in the little link at the bottom of the page, he'd find that Apple (like MOST other smart online retailers) has wording in it to prevent against typographical errors... specifically this:

and then there's these clauses that may also apply (emphasis is mine):

and:

The fact that he received confirmation of the prices may just mean that the customer service rep he spoke to merely agreed that's the same price they saw on the website... sorta like "Yes sir, that's the same price I see on the website, so it must be correct"... I have a feeling said customer service rep could not confirm 100% whether that price was actually supposed to be that way. And after all, Apple has a clause in their sales policy for that too that may possibly apply: meaning said customer service rep can't guarantee the prices listed because as above, prices might change at any time, and Apple is not liable for typos.

So, dunno if the guy just didn't see the policy, it's still there and still applies. Ignorance isn't a defense.

For the record, I copied these phrases from NZ's sales policy.
Click to expand...

website Terms and Conditions have ZERO legal standing in NZ... the law is the law, you cannot contract out of your RIGHTS or RESPONSIBILITIES under NZ law... i could sign 1000 page contract, in triplicate, and it means NOTHING.
 
Troz said:
"He was told that Apple would honour the part of the order that had already shipped, but intercepted the courier package instead. "

Pretty sure he's got a case.
Click to expand...

If he has a recording of the Apple rep, then maybe, but the burden of proof is on him. He has just his word to go off of. Apple has not been well known for settling anything. They will spend tens of thousands of $$ to keep from shelling out a red cent to ANYONE.
 
To be fair, $35 is about all i'd spend on their stuff.

Though, i'd try and get some free ammo or a blender thrown in so I wouldn't have to buy either.
 
Raudulfr said:
Because companies never rip-off consumers or, through incompetence or sheer greed, force them to pay more than what they owe without ever admitting their mistake.


Those poor, poor companies.



And why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be this adamant in defending the company if it wasn't Apple?
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I'm lucky and corporate people are sympathetic to me, but I never got ripped-off by a company (if I find that the price is more expensive than what I think the product is worth, I don't buy it or search for an alternative). On the contrary, I have a few companies that were outstanding to me in regards to pricing and customer service, one even gave me back part of what i paid for my son's crib because the product went on sale a couple days after I bought (they called me and asked me if I would want it to be returned in cash or store credits and I chose the latter as I still had to buy some stuff for my son room). Other companies that have acted way more than expected to me were Dell, Logitech, Microsoft and DFI (all replaced products with defects for newer and more expensive ones).
 
Steve said:
At some point in life, everyone runs across a deal too good to be true. If the order goes through...good for you. If the $1,600 order you got for $35 doesn't go through...you sue? :(
Click to expand...

Sounds to me not like he's doing it for the merch, but to make a point about marketing and price responsibility.

Getting the merch for less probably doesn't hurt though :p
 
Raudulfr said:
Because companies never rip-off consumers or, through incompetence or sheer greed, force them to pay more than what they owe without ever admitting their mistake.
Click to expand...

Not valid. I don't have the right to rob someone just because they robbed me in the past. I don't have the right to stab someone just because they stabbed me in the past.

Raudulfr said:
And why do I have a feeling you wouldn't be this adamant in defending the company if it wasn't Apple?
Click to expand...

Because you like to jump to conclusions? Because you have a stereotype of Apple?

Hell, I *HATE* Walmart, yet I'd be just as adamant if this were "I placed an order on Walmart.com and they recalled the order because the price was wrong!"
 
If he confirmed it with a live person I would say he did his part in ensuring that that is the correct price. he clicks buy then Apple "approved" and shipped his order takes his money then steals his property he paid for !

For argument sake say Apple had a product for $35. but was marked $350. you click buy they approve it ship it (notice at this point they don't stop the order ) you receive it . you think they are going to say anything ?? and actually this happens more often then you think , albeit probably not to that extreme .
 
I guess I should have sued because I didn't get that 40" NEC Monitor that was listed for $29 on that website and they cancelled it on me. But then again, I'm not a douche and I knew better.
 
Pretty sure, this guy won't get anything. Except lawyer fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top