Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / June 2004

While my knowledge of the law is limited, I would have thought that once the
parcel was in the hands of the postal service, only the the person to whom it
was addressed could claim it - barring events such as being undeliverable.

I would have thought you would have a claim against the postal service if they
returned it without attempting to deliver it.

An urban legend perhaps?

David

--
If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

I remember a while back Kodak offered a digi camera for 0.01. They did
honour the 300 or so that were sold before the error was changed but I
remember a discussion on this after HP made the same error and didn't honour
the orders.
The company was not obliged to sell at that price because no contract had
been entered into.

as much as i know, if u see something with a certain price tag,
u have right to buy it for that price, no matter what anyone says.
i bought an usb lan card for $3, real price was $30, got it...payed it...
not my fault. that's what they advertised, that's what i bought.
it doesn't matter what real price is, u r buying it for the price listed!
period!

And the local grocery story has a sign up in the parking lot that reads

  NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE DONE TO CARS BY GROCERY CARTS

or something like that.  But just because there's a sign that says it,
that doesn't make it true.  (But if the sign makes a few people `eat
it' rather than trying to collect from the store, then it's made money
for the store -- even if it's not true.)

Similarly, just because they put up something on their web site, it
doesn't make it true.

As for them reaching out and having the post office return the
package, I've never heard of that happening before -- I'm amazed that
they could do that.  I guess next time you should do next day air :)

Generally, the law is that a vendor has to honor their advertised
prices -- but the law usually also allows for errors.  Once you've
clicked on `buy' and your credit card has been changed, you've got a
legal contract of some sort going on there, but if Tower then
cancelled the order, well, you've got three options -- 1) try and
convince them to reinstate it `to make the customer happy', 2) sue
them, or 3) chalk it up to experience.  To succeed at #2 (if it
actually goes to court) you'll need to convince the judge that it was
false advertising rather than just a mistake.  If the $600 engine was
$459 and all over their flyer, maybe.  But at $1.69, good luck!  And
of course, it'll cost more to sue over it than it's worth.

Ultimately, posession is 9/10ths of the law or so.  If they do sell
you the engine for $1.69 and you get it, then they may ask for it back
once they catch their mistake.  They could sue you if you refused, and
they might even win, but it would cost more than $600 to do so and so
they'll probably just eat it.

In any event, it was obviously a mistake on Tower's part and not
something dishonest, so the honest thing to do would be to call them
and let them know.  They'd probably give you a gift certificate or
something for your trouble.

"> If I was your friend I would be contacting both Tower and the Post
office

I doubt my friend wants to push it that far. He was seeing how far it
would go(and perhaps a "something for nothing" type), I don't know. If
it was me I would not have tried in the first place. It was obviously
a big mistake on Tower's part. I was more intrigued by his story as it
relates to the fine point of the legal question (remembering contracts
in a business law class I took over 35 years ago), and the return of
the item at the post office. A lot of legal water under the bridge,
and the privatization of the PO since then.

Thanks for all the replies,

Tom

Did you read the article you posted a link to?

"Some e-tailers feel obliged to deliver on their blunders; others cancel
delivery. With no clear legal precedent yet, the Better Business Bureau Online
will institute new standards next month that will, in many cases, require
participating online merchants who make Web errors to honor even absurdly low
posted prices. "

There is no statement that any of the example companies have lost a lawsuit in
court.
The BBB Online is not a law making nor regulatory agency of any goverment. It
is a voluntary business organization. Therefore the only thing that will happen
is that any business that does not agree with their guidlines will not be able
to show the BBBO stamp of approval, whopee do! I doubt that will slow down
people ordering from Tower if they don't have the BBBO seal of approval.

All the article says is that because of the internet speed, ad errors create
hundred's to thousands of people trying to take advantage of them instead of a
few.  That the example large companies decided to honor stupid mistakes for PR
reasons does not indicate that they could not win in court against the weasles.

The only court case attempted listed was in regard to bait and switch which has
always been an actionable activity. There was no listing of cases where a
company lost where the company has an honest error in pricing. I doubt if they
would have won in court. "Bait and switch requires proving that a company
knowingly offers a product which they have a very limited supply or no supply
of at a given low price in an attempt to draw in customers and then selling
them same product or another product at a higher price.  You have to prove it
was done on purpose and not an error in an ad.
Settling out of court does not prove guilt.  The company lawyers and
accountants may have concluded it was cheaper to pay-off a bunch of weasles
then to defend the case in court. Happens all the time. Do we waste millions to
defend a case we can win or do we pay off a few hundred thousand dollars to a
bunch of weasles? depending on the number of weasles and the PR somtimes the
answere is yes or no. So round up enough fellow weasles to jump on an honest
mistake and file a class action, you might get an out of court settlement. Or
you could spend a lot of money in lawyers and get nothing if the company
decides to stand their ground.

"Until the FTC or the courts set clear guidelines for liability, most Web
pricing disputes will be decided based not on legalities but on public
relations."

This key quote above sums it up.
Tower has decided that the minor negative PR is worth not giving away their
products on an ad error. I say good for them. Let the weasles win and nobody
will be willing to have online stores if a simple honest error will cost them
thousands of dollars.  I don't think the legal system is going to let the
weasles win simply because the net causes them to jump on honest errors by the
thousands instead of half a dozen a newspaper ad error  generates.

Bob Ruth