Enforcing purchase of item &quot;mistakenly listed at too low price&quot; I purchased an item from a legitimate online store of a business registered and operating near me. I paid with credit card and received an email with my &quot;order confirmation&quot;, stating the order number, price paid, shipping address, and details of the item paid for. The money was deducted from my account by the merchant. After receiving the order confirmation email, I received a call from the seller saying that the product was &quot;mistakenly listed at a lower price than they wanted to sell it for&quot; so they would not honor the purchase and had already issued a refund. The item was indeed listed at around 10% of the price that I can purchase it elsewhere. Can I enforce the order and have them either send me the product at that price, or the amount of money to buy that same product elsewhere? What is the law on situations like this? Their terms &amp; conditions have no mention of this kind of situation or any general right to cancel the order etc. At what point can the seller cancel the deal without my consent? Before confirming the order? Before taking payment? Before shipping? Before delivery? There must be a clear boundary somewhere. I'd like to know where it is and whether it was crossed in this particular case.
Probably not Once you and the store have entered into a contract the price in that contract is determinative. However, most online stores' terms are very clear there is no contract when you place your order or when you get their automated reply; the contract comes into existence later when they do something. For example: With respect to products sold by Amazon AU, your order is an offer to us for you to buy the product(s) in your order. ... The Order Confirmation is acknowledgement that we have received your order, and does not confirm our acceptance of your offer to buy the product(s) ordered. We only accept your offer, and conclude the contract of sale for a product ordered by you, when we dispatch the product(s) to you and send e-mail or post a message on the Message Centre of the website confirming that we've dispatched the product to you (the &quot;Dispatch Confirmation&quot;). ... Now, even without these terms, it's unlikely that your offer and the company's automated response created a binding contract because the company (as in, an actual person acting for the company) did not consent to the formation of the contract. Consent is fundamental: see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?. What you received was an &quot;order confirmation&quot; - a reiteration of your offer to the company, not an acceptance of your order. Consumer protection Most jurisdictions have consumer protection laws that make it illegal to display an incorrect price. However, in most, that does not oblige the retailer to honour the price, it just exposes them to fines from the regulator.
Yes, they are. A business can decide not to do business with someone for pretty much any reason. The obvious prohibited reason is due to your race. But I don't see how eBay would even know your race. Some State laws might protect you, but I don't think there's any that applies in this case. For example, California might give you a means of appeal if someone stole your identity and they performed those transactions, not you. But I don't know of any Federal or State law that would change the very, very basic principle of law that a property owner gets to decide who can and cannot access their property. eBay owns eBay. One key benefit of ownership is precisely that you can make decisions that other people consider to be unfair, discriminatory (other than the specifically prohibited categories) and draconian. Other people don't have to agree with your decisions for them to be lawful.
With respect to the two-year guarantee for faulty products, The Consumer Sales Directive does not apply to non-tangible products like softwares delivered by internet. (b) consumer goods: shall mean any tangible movable item, with the exception of: Relevant rules on faulty digital services are contained in the Digital Content Directive, which provides In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the digital content or digital service brought into conformity, to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the contract, under the conditions set out in this Article. The consumer shall be entitled to have the digital content or digital service brought into conformity, unless this would be impossible or would impose costs on the trader that would be disproportionate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including: (a) the value the digital content or digital service would have if there were no lack of conformity; and (b) the significance of the lack of conformity. However, this is essentially irrelevant for free apps where no reduction of price is possible and it is likely an obligation to fix the app is disproportional given the price is zero. Notably, the directive also puts most responsibilities regarding the &quot;digital environment&quot; (e.g. computers and network costs) on the consumer, as the environment is not particularly tied to the digital service. In your comment, you refer to a 14-day rule. You might be confusing the guarantee laws with the cooling-off period provided by the Consumer Rights Directive. In that case, you have a right of withdrawal but are only entitled to the costs you paid to the trader, and not any other third party, which is zero in the case of free apps. In an analogy to physical goods ordered online, you don't get a refund for your bus ticket if you need to go to the post office to collect it. By the way, Google terms cannot override public law and in fact if you look into Google refund policy you'll see that EU laws are specifically mentioned.
which of these conditions are enforceable (as in I could collect damages from a person for using the wrong plan)? The validity of the contract does not depend on the outlined conditions being that weird. These weird conditions are merely a way of saying that [almost] everyone is required to pay $10/month for using the website. What determines the validity of the contract is the issue of whether users knew or [reasonably] should have known the ToS. If the website does not contain functionality toward reasonably ensuring that users become aware of the ToS prior to using the website, it will be unlikely or impossible for the website owner to establish that a contract was formed. In terms of Restatement (Second) of Contracts at §§ 17-20, users' reasonable misunderstanding would preclude a finding of mutual assent on which contracts are premised.
This follows from a term in your agreement: in opening the account, you agreed to a binding arbitration clause. The general reason why they can do this is because it is not prohibited by law to have such clauses in agreements (in fact, the Federal Arbitration Act protects such clauses from legal challenge). For the same reasons, the clauses can impose deadlines on opt-out or require opt-out by mail as opposed to email or phone call. The premise is that if you find such terms unacceptably onerous or unacceptable, you will not patronize that business. That assumes that the customer read and understood the agreement that they signed, which I grant is often untrue.
Does an agreement in a chat count as a valid contract? In most jurisdictions (and for most transactions): yes. Usually the only thing that matters for a valid contract is that there is a mutual agreement &ndash; whether that is in writing, orally, via chat or via sign language does not matter. Of course, having things in writing makes it easier to prove in court if there is a problem, so it's still advisable. What steps could I take if they don't send the money? You can: remind them to pay if they still don't pay, you can sue them. Some juridictions have accelerated court proceedings for simple cases like this (e.g. Gerichtliches Mahnverfahren in Germany), otherwise you will have to sue in a regular court that deals with contract disputes. But I have no names and I am unsure what they can or have to do after they received the package. This is going to be the main problem. It's no good to enter into a contract if you do not know who the other party is :-). You definitely need to find out who exactly entered into an agreement with you. If the sale is to a private person, find out their name and address. If the sale is to a business (seems to be the case here), find the official name and legal type of the business, and make sure whoever you deal with is authorized to enter into contracts. Otherwise the contract will be hard to enforce in court if things go wrong.
A lawsuit is designed to put you in the position you were in before the sale happened. Since the company has already offered you a full refund, suing would achieve nothing except cost you fees; your time and frustration are not legally recompensable. It may be that some consumer-protection office can fine this company for misleading advertising; the case would turn on whether the mistake should have been noticed before customer support sent a false confirmation. If you want to start the process, you should make a formal complaint to your local trading standards/customer service office. You will get no reward except relief to your feelings.
The security guard, acting for the (now former) owner of the property doesn't know the new ownership of the property and asks for evidence Bob now owns the property. The security guard is free to ask. Bob cannot produce a receipt for his purchase of the property. The security guard asks which checkout Bob used, so that the security guard can check its records for the transaction. Bob doesn't know specifically and says the checkout was one of three. The security guard asks Bob to remain while each of the three checkouts is checked until Bob's transaction is discovered (or not). The security guard is free to ask. Bob is legally free to leave with his property but the security guard may think he has reasonable grounds for suspicion of shoplifting and decide to try to detain Bob on suspicion of shoplifting until the ownership of the property is established. As any member of the public, the security guard may use &quot;as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.&quot; (s3 Criminal Law Act 1967) Bob is also free to leave without his property. In this case, as there could be no grounds for suspicion of shoplifting, only attempted shoplifting, it seems unlikely that any force would be reasonable. Of course, depending on retailer policy the security guard may be allowed to ban Bob from the premises if Bob doesn't cooperate. https://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/being-a-security-guard/