Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Agrees to Honor Mis-Priced Mac Mini Orders in Taiwan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not always. Many print adverts will have E&OE at the bottom (Errors and Omissions excepted). There's also case law that if a mistaken price was obviously 'unreasonable' e.g. a new TV for 1p, then the company does not have to honour it.
However, if the company has got as far as actually taking your money for the wrong price, it becomes much harder for them to back out.
(I'm only talking about UK law here.)
Totally and utterly wrong. I myself thought that was the case, but it isn't. The seller can refuse to sell you anything, or refuse to sell at that price. What _is_ illegal is to intentionally put up the wrong prices, presumable to get you into the shop.
So if Apple puts up a sign in their store "MacBooks today only £199" instead of "£1099" by mistake, they don't have to sell at that price - but if you try to buy at that price and they refuse to sell it, they better take down the sign immediately, or they would be in trouble. Actually they have to take it down as soon as the mistake is noticed.
Unless Apple was smart enough to put some tiny print about the prices showing online not necessarily being correct and being able to change them for the correct price at any time.
I'm not so sure. Fraud is about suffering damages through misrepresentation. However, a fake-student is giving real money and getting a real computer in return. You can certainly enjoy criminal prosecution for lying to the government about your eligibility for benefits/loans/etc., but if we sign a contract in which you say you have a third nipple and I agree to sponsor you to have it surgically removed, then it turns out you only had 2 nipples, I'm not sure it's anything more than a civil matter.
The hairy question is whether authorising an amount on your CC rather than actually debiting your account counts as "taking your money". Many web stores have a "we're not actually selling this to you until we've approved the order" clause to clarify what they think. Is there case law to decide either way?
A legal analysis from an American lawyer
Classic contract law requires an offer, acceptance and consideration. When a price is advertised, it is considered an invitation for an offer. Your order constitutes the offer. If the store says yes or takes your money, that would be the acceptance. The consideration in this case is the money and the computer. The only time that ads are held to be offers is if the merchant says that they have a certain number of items available at a certain price, or perhaps available at only a certain hour, and you fulfill your end of the bargain by showing up at the appropriate time and before all the items are gone.
Caveat: While most print advertising does not have many terms and conditions, Apple could argue that the terms and conditions that you agreed to online by clicking 'yes' on the box (when making your offer to buy the product) give Apple a way out. The issue becomes what are the terms of your contract. Any ambiguity would be interpreted against the party drafting the terms -- Apple.
If the price was somewhat unreasonable (as I would find the case to be here), that would not necessarily give Apple a way out. However, if the price was extraordinarily unreasonable, Apple could argue the mistake doctrine as a way of getting out of an otherwise valid contract.
Purchasers may be able to rely on consumer protection laws. I bet the terms and conditions of your purchase stated that California law applies, and California probably has the most consumer-friendly consumer protection laws anywhere in the world. But be prepared for either binding arbitration or filing suit in the courts of Cupertino, CA under the same terms and conditions.
If fraud is perpetrated by individuals improperly posing as qualified educational purchasers, it is not required that the person receive the item for the crime to occur. However, I doubt Apple is going to contact your local authorities in an effort to prosecute you. Sure, Apple's damages would be $0 if Apple never sent you anything, so there would be no restitution ordered, however if you violated the laws of your jurisdiction, that is the definition of a crime.
If Apple started charging people more than what they initially agreed to pay, they may have committed a crime as well. And going back to the contract analysis, affected purchasers could argue that Apple does not have clean hands to come into court and request a legal or equitable remedy for their misstated price.
Just because you may have the legal right to do something, public image may be more important than enforcing every legal right.
Ha ha ha!
Classic contract law requires an offer, acceptance and consideration. When a price is advertised, it is considered an invitation for an offer. Your order constitutes the offer. If the store says yes or takes your money, that would be the acceptance. The consideration in this case is the money and the computer. The only time that ads are held to be offers is if the merchant says that they have a certain number of items available at a certain price, or perhaps available at only a certain hour, and you fulfill your end of the bargain by showing up at the appropriate time and before all the items are gone.
Caveat: While most print advertising does not have many terms and conditions, Apple could argue that the terms and conditions that you agreed to online by clicking 'yes' on the box (when making your offer to buy the product) give Apple a way out. The issue becomes what are the terms of your contract. Any ambiguity would be interpreted against the party drafting the terms -- Apple.
If the price was somewhat unreasonable (as I would find the case to be here), that would not necessarily give Apple a way out. However, if the price was extraordinarily unreasonable, Apple could argue the mistake doctrine as a way of getting out of an otherwise valid contract.
Purchasers may be able to rely on consumer protection laws. I bet the terms and conditions of your purchase stated that California law applies, and California probably has the most consumer-friendly consumer protection laws anywhere in the world. But be prepared for either binding arbitration or filing suit in the courts of Cupertino, CA under the same terms and conditions.
If fraud is perpetrated by individuals improperly posing as qualified educational purchasers, it is not required that the person receive the item for the crime to occur. However, I doubt Apple is going to contact your local authorities in an effort to prosecute you. Sure, Apple's damages would be $0 if Apple never sent you anything, so there would be no restitution ordered, however if you violated the laws of your jurisdiction, that is the definition of a crime.
If Apple started charging people more than what they initially agreed to pay, they may have committed a crime as well. And going back to the contract analysis, affected purchasers could argue that Apple does not have clean hands to come into court and request a legal or equitable remedy for their misstated price.
Just because you may have the legal right to do something, public image may be more important than enforcing every legal right.
Fine, I'll just take my millions of dongs elsewhere.
Ha ha ha!