Here's an article I think both sides should read. It talks specificly about what constitutes a contract at Amazon.com, and what Amazon could do to retaliate now that the items have been delivered.

http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu...2groebner.html

I agree, Ocelot...as Larry the Cable Guy would say, "Now, that's funny...I don't care who you are". Thanks for reposting it for those who missed it earlier. Sorry for forgetting that you wrote it, Jah-Wren...you did a great job. Good thing parodies are legally protected...at least you won't have to worry about Mark Knopfler's attorneys comin' after you!

I've read a lot of funny things on dvdtalk...this is my favorite. Good work.

Hrmm very interesting..reading that..it appears Amazon DOES have a case:

Reading on..If the average person knew that it was too good to be true, and knew that it was a mistake, Amazon has grounds to break the contract.

Good find. Keeping in mind this is a journal article and doesn't actually cite any rulings from court cases resulting from the same situation as this, it looks like Amazon can only ask for the return of the items and not for the extra $$:

<16> Rescinding the contract is the only available remedy under unilateral mistake; it is not a basis for reformation.31 This means that online retailers cannot require the customer to continue with the sale at the actual retail price. Instead, the retailer must cancel the customer’s order and re-offer the product at the actual price. Understandably, however, many customers might not elect to re-purchase at the full price after losing the bargain.


And it looks like a court may actually not order a recission (I added bold):

<17> Importantly, for some particular circumstances, courts have suggested they might refuse to order rescission. Courts have noted in dicta that the following factors may be relevant in deciding whether to grant rescission: whether other party has so detrimentally relied on the contact it would be inequitable to order rescission,32 will be prejudiced by rescission,33 or cannot be returned to the status quo.34 In addition, courts have refused to rescind contracts when the mistake resulted from the affected parties’ negligence or lack of due care.35 One court even required that the mistake result from clerical, mechanical, or technical errors.36

Surely, with the system Amazon has in place as described in that document, in addition to the fact that the 'glitch' was discovered sometime in the afternoon of the first day, what reason could there be besides lack of due care that items ordered during this glitch were shipped up to 4-5 days later. Heck, given the computerized system they have, as suggested before, isn't it plausible to believe the orders sent out later that same day could have been pulled even after packing but before the carrier picked them up?

Agreed. They can't charge for the extra $$, But they can require the return of the items..and if those items are not returned...Collection agencies? They cant legally charge you more.

Yep. I was also going to say that Amazon has changed their policies since the UK pricing mistake referenced in the earlier linked articles. Info about the "contract" is no longer there...

This is a very interesting article. The statement on the final order page about the contract, however, is still there.

Here's my take on what might have happened:

At the offices of Amazon.com - December 23rd, 2006

Amazon minion: Boss, we got the programming error on the Buy One Get One Free deal working correctly now.

Amazon bigwig Mr. Dipcreek: Excellent. Excellent. And the guy who's responsible for the error?

Minion: He's been taken care of.

Mr. Dipcreek: Good. Good.

Minion: So what do we do about all the DVDs we have packed and ready to go at our shipping facilities? Should we have them sent back to us?

Mr. Dipcreek: Nah that's too much trouble. Plus we need to clear out some inventory. Ship 'em out.

Minion: But won't we lose a lot of money?

Mr. Dipcreek: Nah. We'll just send out an email in a few days telling our customers to return the DVDs or to keep 'em and we'll charge 'em the full price. Americans are lazy. Most of them will probably just keep the DVDs and let us charge them for it. We'll end up selling a lot more stuff than we would have without the glitch.

Minion: Mr. Dipcreek, you're a genius!

Mr. Dipcreek: I know. I know.

Minion: I bet a lot of people will open their DVDs right out of the box. We should tell them that they can't return the DVDs if they've already been opened. If we hold off on sending the email until, say, the 28th, that'll mean even more profit!

Mr. Dipcreek: Son, I see a bright future ahead for you at this company.

Minion: Thank you, Mr. Dipcreek. Thank you.

I would be careful with that one. The terms of such promotions clearly state that they don't work with 1-click checkout.

Interesting read! I'm not sure if some of the points will apply in the case where items have already been shipped. Of course, aren't all contracts subject to reasonableness? It's hardly reasonable for a company to give it's product away for free...

Jah-Wren Ryel, you are very clever. Very clever, indeed!

It should be noted that nothing in this article says nothing about the situation that most people here are in-- amazon's wanting to rescind a contract after both parties fulfilling/completing the terms of that contract and not just making a contract. I would imagine that that is one of the pitfalls of the safeguards as described in this article.

Additionally, this article was published by a 2L at the University of Washington.

anyone else picture Mr. Burns and Mr. Smithers? Eeexcellent

This is true, but at least its something that was put alot of research and thought into.

Most everyone claiming, its shipped, so Amazon is SOL, are not doing that on any basis of law (unless they are lawyers).

My understanding in reading the article is that Amazon sending the email that they received our order does not constitute a contract. Amazon can then still legally cancel at this point & we can buy at the BOGOF price if we wish to.
(This means that online retailers cannot require the customer to continue with the sale at the actual retail price. Instead, the retailer must cancel the customer’s order and re-offer the product at the actual price. Understandably, however, many customers might not elect to re-purchase at the full price after losing the bargain.)
(The retailer’s site should include in its terms and conditions a statement reserving the right to cancel orders and an explanation that the customer’s order only constitutes an offer, which the retailer can accept by either charging the customer’s credit card or by dispatching the product. For additional insurance, the customer should be required to assent to those terms by clicking “I Accept” during the checkout process. Finally, the retailer can condition contract formation on successful completion of certain steps by the retailer, such as confirming the availability of inventory or shipping the goods.)
It sounds like once Amazon charged our credit card & shipped the dvds the contract was fulfilled, the deal is sealed, Amazon agreed to the terms as per their charging our credit card & shipping the items.
Once the mistake was discovered they had time to cancel before shipment which was about 24 hours after I placed my order or at the very least if they couldn't stop shipment they certainly had time to email eveyone before they received the dvds & ask that they refuse shipment. Maybe more of us would have been more inclined to refuse delivery but now that the items have been received, the boxes open & maybe even the dvds opened we are really ticked off at them & more determined to keep the dvds.

In terms of credit card regulations, I don't think Amazon has a leg to stand on. They are going to be looking at dozens of chargebacks that will be contested. None of the cardholders authorized Amazon to charge them the higher amount. So they simply cannot charge again - it would be an unauthorized charge.

Haha, cyberspace shoplifters complaining, quite an oddsight for us just walking in on this news.

That's way too open-ended. what constitutes "too good to be true"? What about the MTV.com sale last month where they were blowing out Beavis & Butthead volumes 1-3 for only $5.98 each? Seeing as those sell for $28 or more at stores, that's definitely something that looked too good to be true, but was legit... but from what you're saying, MTV can now decide that they didn't like the price they charged and can go back and charge us the full $30 a set that it currently lists at.

All the posts about legal theories are interesting, but it really all boils down to what Amazon's contracts with the credit card companies state. I would be really surprised if they were allowed to do this, because I don't know of any major retailer that feels they are authorized to retroactively charge customers different amounts (the exception being automatically recurring payments, automatic monthly deliveries, etc).

Perhaps they feel it's worth the gamble of taking on additional chargebacks. They have to report it as a loss somewhere. Currently, I would suppose they have to attribute it somewhere to operations or IT. Maybe they feel a threatening e-mail will help mitigate some loss (i.e., encourage returns) and offset any additional chargeback losses. The problem, though, is that chargebacks just look really bad all around. It has the potential to hurt your merchant account with the cc issuers (although for a company that size, I'm sure it won't have any impact), and it looks bad on the books. It's all a numbers game, and only Amazon knows what their current gameplan is (if they have one).

On the bright side, with the huge volume of chargebacks that the banks deal with, it's a pretty cut and dry issue. The banks aren't going to get into fraud theories, international law, etc. Just provide your original sales receipt and advise them you were charged more than you authorized. It's as simple as that. In my experience, one additional factor that benefits the customer wrt to chargebacks is the absence of a signature. For many cc issuers, the absence of a signature on deliveries makes them much more likely to side with the cardholder. I know it seems completely irrelevant in this case, but the bank is basically just going to ask for your side of the story (including documentation, if they need it), and then give Amazon a chance to respond by providing a copy of their paperwork, which typically includes delivery information. I believe Amex is one of the biggest sticklers for having a signature upon delivery wrt to a merchant being able to successfully fight a chargeback attempt.

Those prices were advertised, wasnt a glitch in a system that was taken advantage of. The company sold them for what they intended to sell them for.

What about the guy who goes to a garage sale and finds a rare dvd worth hundreds of dollars that is being sold for $1? Say the guy buys the DVD and then starts bragging to a friend that he just got an incredible deal. The seller overhears the conversation and then demands that the buyer return the DVD because he knew that it was worth a lot more than he purchased it for and therefore he was deliberately cheating the seller. Does the seller have any legal leg to stand on? I think not. Once he sells the DVD it becomes the property of the guy who purchased it at the price paid for, regardless if the buyer knew he was getting the DVD at far lower than its actual value.

He still intended to sell it at $1 when he sold it...

What if he says that he made a mistake and put the wrong price on it. He didn't notice that he had made the mistake until the buyer started bragging about it.

He could then argue that since it was a mistaken price and since the buyer clearly knew it was a mistake, the deal should be voided even though he accepted money for it and gave the item to the buyer.

anyone? what should i say in my email ppl?

Two easy responses.

One: I don't think it has ever been confirmed that it was not a glitch. And where was it "Advertised". Those prices on B&B were crazy low, and it very well may have been something that slipped through the cracks, and yet was honored.

Two: Even if you assume for argument's sake that it was not a glitch, those of us who ordered at the time certainly could not have been sure of that. These are basically minimum $20 sets, that were sold for $5 each. Sure seemed like a glitch at the time. But people were all over the deal at the time. Maybe even members of the 'holier than thou' club got in on that deal. But I don't remember discussions of ethics and morals when people were placing the orders.

Then tough noogies. Buyer has the advantage there.

But in this case the prices were not wrong, it was a glitchy promotion. The products were "priced" buy this one, get this one free. Not get this one free, get this one free(plus s/h)