Seller unilaterally triples the shipping cost Bob (in New Zealand) is on the hunt for a specific, a bit bulky and heavy device all over the world. He finds it at a web store in Spain for a good price. They ship internationally: shipping cost is automatically calculated upon providing an address. Bob, happy with all the costs, places an order and pays by credit card. The card gets actually charged. A few days later, when the purchase already appears finished on the card's online statement, the store emails Bob: shipping cost to NZ is triple the one you've paid. Do you wanna pay the difference or cancel the order and get the refund? What does the Spanish law say about situations like this? Is the store obliged to honour the contract and ship at the original cost, or is there no contract (only invitation to treat)? Even assuming that there is a contract (money was actually taken, not just authorized), is the store allowed to say &quot;sorry we made a mistake as to the shipping costs&quot; and just pull out? Note that the store effectively has no specific terms and conditions (the relevant page on their site is filled with &quot;Lorem ipsum...&quot;), so the default law, whatever it is, apparently applies. If the store is obliged to honour the original deal, are there any regulatory authorities lodging a complaint to which would teach the store some good manners? Would this matter, if pursued by Bob, be a small claims matter in Spain given that the total bill is about €2,000?
france France is not Spain, but both are civil-law jurisdictions, so I expect this answer to be marginally more applicable to the original question than answers based on common-law countries. Listed prices are binding on the seller, even if mistaken Price tag errors (whether physical or electronic) usually involve low amounts of money, so there is not much jurisprudence on that point. Let us start by discussing Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 04 juillet 1995, 93-16198, where the highest French court endorsed a 1993 court of appeal ruling, because it illustrates some relevant principles. A jewelry store put up a ring for sale for 100 000 francs (equivalent to roughly €20 000 in 2021), which someone bought. The store later realized that there was a mistake in the price tag (the intended listing price was more than four times higher) and sued to revert the sale. The court of appeals judged that as a general rule, mistakes in price tags are a risk the seller takes; the buyer could reasonably think the asked price matched the true value of the ring, and therefore it was not &quot;unrealistically low&quot; The latter point refers to a statute (Code Civil 1169) that says a contract of something-for-money is void if the price is &quot;unrealistically low&quot;. The ruling essentially says that the test for &quot;unrealistically low&quot; is whether the buyer should reasonably be aware that the price is due to a mistake from the seller. I doubt a store can rely on the &quot;unrealistically low&quot; provision in the case of shipping fees. A random consumer has no way to accurately know the price of overseas shipping. Even if they did think the shipping fees were much lower than expected, it might be because the store chooses to charge something else that their exact costs, for whatever reason (e.g. uniform shipping fees is easier to maintain on their website that one cost for each country; some stores are &quot;free shipping&quot; meaning they recoup their shipping costs with higher item prices). No surprise fees The seller might argue that their shipping costs were unknown, and that the shipping fee they charged was a provisional estimate, or conditional on a later determination of the true cost. Code de la consommation, L112-3 says that when the total price of the item or service sold &quot;cannot be reasonably known in advance [of the sale]&quot;, the seller must provide advance notice to the buyer, as well as the method by which the unknown components of the price will be later determined. No such notice appears to have been made. Online sale: when is the contract formed? The seller might argue that clicking &quot;buy&quot; on an online shopping cart does not form a contract, but that they reserve acceptance at a later date. The other answers seem to indicate that is a valid practice in some common-law countries, but I believe that is not the case in France. I could not find court cases on exactly that point, and therefore cannot be sure that the rest of my answer is correct. I believe the seller is bound by the terms offered on the website, based on Code Civil, 1127-1 and 1127-2. Quiconque propose à titre professionnel, par voie électronique, la fourniture de biens ou la prestation de services, met à disposition les stipulations contractuelles applicables d'une manière qui permette leur conservation et leur reproduction. L'auteur d'une offre reste engagé par elle tant qu'elle est accessible par voie électronique de son fait. (...) Le contrat n'est valablement conclu que si le destinataire de l'offre a eu la possibilité de vérifier le détail de sa commande et son prix total et de corriger d'éventuelles erreurs avant de confirmer celle-ci pour exprimer son acceptation définitive. Whichever business proposes by electronic means the sale of goods or services must allow the contractual conditions be be recorded and reproduced. The author of an offer is bound by it as long as it is accessible due to his or her actions. (...) The contract is formed only if the recipient of the offer could check the details of his or her order, its total price, and could correct possible mistakes, before confirming the order to formulate his or her definite acceptance. &quot;Due to his or her actions&quot; means I cannot screenshot an Amazon page (or duplicate it on my web server) and request the conditions of that screenshot two years later. However, it does not include provisions for mistakes in the listed price or sales conditions, and I would expect the general rule (price tag mistakes are on the seller) to apply on the internet. The last paragraph cited is a consumer rights provision - essentially, &quot;no contract is formed unless the consumer did X&quot;. However, it implies that once the consumer did X, the contract is formed. Contract enforcement For the above reasons, I believe clauses that allow an online store to unilaterally cancel an order once placed are unenforceable (unless force majeure or other narrow exceptions apply). That being said, the incentive to sue in such cases is low (and I could find no jurisprudence). In France (and I believe in all civil-law systems), civil liability is established by three factors: a damage, a wrongful action, and a causation link between the two. In the jewelry case, the store could easily prove the damage (difference between the price at which the sale was made and the price at which the item was estimated), and the causation link between the consumer’s action and the damage; however, there was no wrongful action. In the case where the exchange of goods against money has been blocked by the store, the consumer’s problem is to prove damage. If they have not been charged, or if they have been charged but refunded, the direct monetary impact is zero. The consumer would have to prove other theories of damage: for instance, that they relied on the ordered item to do something, and could not find a replacement in time. However, in all such scenarios, the causation link will be hard to prove.
It's the seller's responsibility. Note that in the UK you actually get much more than 2 years. The 2 year rule is the minimum required by the EU, but each country is free to implement that as they choose and the UK has much more. In the UK you are protected by the Consumer Rights Act. It states that products must last a "reasonable length of time". What counts as reasonable depends on the goods. For electronics 2 years is usually the absolute minimum, but for things like televisions the courts generally consider it to be 5 years even for cheap models. Under the Act the retailer is responsible. They can either replace the device or refund you, with the refund amount accounting for the 1.5 years use you had from it. As it was part of a phone contract it could be difficult to agree on a value for the speaker, but looking up the replacement cost for the same or a similar device is a good place to start. Which? has a lot more information and advice.
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 reason that you are being asked to comply with a US law is because PayPal, a US company, is required to comply with US laws. If you do not comply, it is likely that they will be non-compliant and subject to sanctions. For more background, FATCA reporting is used to identify businesses that a company does business with. In this scenario PayPal does business with you, 'Kenorb Inc', and so must prove to the regulatory agencies that you are not a US based company, hence the need for the W-8BENE. In a similar way - people from other countries cannot simply ignore UK law when dealing with your business. As for your quotes - they are not contradictory.
You are correct in that the GST is 10%. It never has been (and likely never will be!) 2.5%. You're also correct that some items (generally considered as 'essentials') are GST free. For example, the ATO includes 'most basic food' on its list of GST-free items. However, these GST-free items are completely GST free, and restaurant meals certainly don't class as basic food. Perhaps interestingly, the wholesale sales tax when it was first introduced in 1930 was set at 2.5%, but it wasn't at that rate for long (see A brief history of Australia's tax system). If I had to guess, I'd say this is probably a dodgy set up in this restaurant's point-of-sale system (there's also no such thing as 'GST2'). Hopefully their returns to the tax office are not as dodgy!
Note: IANAL Does the placement of a sticker stating, "We accept XYZ credit cards," essentially obligate a business to accept that card? It depends on whether you mean whether they are obligated to provide goods/services to someone who presents the card, or whether, having provided goods/services, they are obligated to accept the card as payment. For the first question, the answer is "no". The credit card brand could theoretically go after them, however, as names of credit networks are trademarks, so claiming to accept a card but not doing so is trademark infringement. For the second, the answer is "pretty much". Since they misrepresented their establishment, there is no mutual assent and therefore no contract. If they try to use "defrauding the innkeeper statutes", those require fraudulent intent. If you fully intended to pay for you meal by a credit card, and it was their choice to refuse payment, then you have no fraudulent intent. The only avenue I can see for them is some sort of equity argument, but that would be problematic, especially if they ask for the retail, rather than wholesale, price, and not worth the hassle of collecting. So, legally, you can just walk out, but in practice if they have a bouncer they might make trouble for you.
Ignoring morals, is there legal obligation for him to attempt to return the refund? No, but he must pay for the goods if the supplier asks. Does this fall under unjust enrichment? No. This is simply a contract law issue. The person is contractually obliged to pay for the goods and, in the present circumstances, they haven’t done so. If so, to what extent must he try? He doesn’t have to make an active effort to pay but he can if he likes. However, if and when the vendor realises their mistake and asks for payment, it must be made in a reasonable time.
The statement ABCGym refuses to refund payment it accepted for membership to a gym ABCGym closed. ABCGym has substituted an inferior-to-me option. could certainly be considered as defamatory. However, in the US and many other countries, truth would be a valid defense, if the person making the statement could prove that the statement is true. I don't see how it could be construed as solicitation. If worn on a shirt into ABC, the management could surely ask the wearer to remove it. If that request is refused, they could ask the wearer to leave. If the wearer has a valid membership, then it would depend on the exact terms of the membership contract, and provisions of local law, whether ABC could insist that the wearer leave, or have the wearer arrested for trespass should the wearer refuse. Any regulations incorporated by reference into the contract would also matter. At least in the US. walking back and forth on a public sidewalk just outside ABC's door, wearing such a shirt or carrying a classic picket sign with such a message would be pretty clearly legal, provided that others are not unduly obstructed, and no valid local ordinance is violated. In the wear-the-shirt-inside case, if the wearer refuses to remove the shirt or leave, the management would probably call law enforcement. LE will not want to decide whether wearer has the legal right to remain in the club wearing the shirt. They will probably ask the wearer to leave. If the wearer protests that s/he has a valid membership and thus a contractual right to stay, who knows what they would do. If they still ask the wearer to leave, the wearer would be wise to comply and perhaps take legal action to enforce his or her membership rights, which will depend on the contract details as mentioned above. A lawyer would probably be very helpful if the wearer wants to take that route. The wearer would be wise to remain polite and appear calm, not yelling or using epithets.