I think I'm more frustrated by the lack of capitalization and paragraphs in many of these posts than Amazon emailing me and asking for my money.

Just sent my 3rd email to Amazon. Going around in circles here.

Ummm there is no difference between a 35 cent Snickers and a $50.00 DVD;
There was an agreed upon transaction total between buyer and seller,
The buyer transferred the agreed upon monies to the seller,
The seller transferred possession to the buyer,
Contractual agreement was fulfilled by both buyer and seller.
Possession is 9/10 of the law.

This could go to court but it would make worldwide headlines if retailers could charge for their incompetence post-sale. Perhaps I would even open a retailing website offering Ipods for $400, but when it gets to the cart only have it list $40.00. Word gets around and I sell and DELIVER 7000 Ipods, then inform customers it was a mistake and I need to charge the additional $360 or they have to return the merchandise in perfect unopened condition, because our system did not fully charge them (plus maybe when you return the merchandise we’ll just say we didn’t receive it or it was damaged). If Amazon sets this precedent in court there will be thousands of online retailers doing this. You probably think this is an exaggeration but there are hundreds of online retailers that barely operate within the law as it is (look at some online sites seller ratings and comments), opening a new opportunity to screw people will make them drool.
Most online retailers take advantage of automated processing to complete transactions; this is a choice of theirs. They could just as easy hire “cashiers” to process each order individually (you know, like normal B&M store have to), but this allows them to save money not hiring people and make more money by processing more orders. They’re choice is their burden to maintain and insure proper processing.
If Ford is negotiating a contract with Toyota by using a “Negotiation Robot” and the robot fails to yield the proper results, could Ford later claim the contract was invalid because the “carry the one” routine in the robots memory was not programmed properly? Maybe they could do this days after the contract had been fulfilled (even though they noticed a problem with the robot and corrected it the same day with full knowledge it had been negotiating earlier in the day)?
Bottom line; an automated system is the responsibility of the owner/operator not the customer.

Was laughing heartily with your observation...and then suddenly realized that I had neglected to doublespace my paragraphs (went back & fixed it). Bitchslapped by me own self!! Can't find an ouch smilie, so these'll have to do:


To LooCoo: You make some good points regarding online retailer's risks when they use automated systems. Playing devil's advocate for a minute, I would point out that I think some of their savings get passed on to the customer in terms of sales, discounts, etc., so we customers may also benefit (just as we save taxes, etc.). Merely thinking out loud...doesn't negate the validity of your comments. (Also, as I'm sure everyone knows, CSRs can be a nightmare to deal with. Recent J&R sale fiasco has its own thread for that). But, yes, Amazon has a lot of repairing to do, both in terms of preventing this sort of glitch & damage control to customer relations due to their shifting stances which just add to the confusion).

However, I must disagree with you that there no difference between a .50 Snickers and a $50 DVD. The Snickers is much tastier.

contracts can be deemed invalid even AFTER the transaction (hard to do but is done)
amazon has to prove that they did their best in screening..

all amazon has to really do is say this: people INTENTIONALLY tried ripping them off AND because of the holiday season timing amazon tried to get orderes out as quickly as possible for the good of the customers (so order screening kept minimal during the pre holiday rush) and they WIN their case (overall) on those 2 factors alone.. that buyers intenntionally knew they were scamming amazon and amazon did its best given the circumstances to catch their mistake.

also there is no difference between .50 cent snicks and a $50 dvd..however if you ordered more than 500 worth of dvds that adds a word to any legal issues called grand!! (ala grand theft auto) so anything over 500 dollars worth of products can be legally taken up by amazon as grand theft andddddd you get yourself in slightly higher shit because of that....

my morale of the story is this: if you RISK something or knowingly go for somethin that you know is ripping off the company dont try to complain about it like its THEIR FAULT! if amazon ripped you off you should tear them a hole but dont try doin it when you ripped them off in the first place!!
even if you say i agreed to pay 0 dollars you still KNOWIGNLY ripped them off..and dare to complain?

I'd be pretty upset if someone tried to get my family jewels as well. Well, wait, was she hot?

If I ever do find myself in court with Amazon.com, I hope to Hell that you're their lawyer.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, this did go to some sort of trial, and arguing these two points was all Amazon needed to win the case, how would Amazon prove the second point when 1) the 'glitch' was discovered and fixed within a few hours or so after it happened 2) some who got in on the 'glitch' had their orders cancelled or their invoices amended to show the 'correct' price within 24 hours and 3) some orders shipped 4-5 days afterwards.

I think we should start a poll for the best one-liners in this thread. My first place vote goes to this one by SkullOrchard...for now. Even if I end up having to pay more for my three orders this thread will help ease my pain. They do say laughter is the best medicine.

im not amazon, thats for them to prove and what their lawyers would try doing

==========
i would be a pretty good lawyer i did get an a in the class even after i averaged the final

btw..i would reccomend you get a lawyer, it wouldnt be wise for you to represent yourself considering your lack of knowledge, and yes if it was me representing amazon vs you, i would most likely win

edit: my only point is that this situation is not as SIMPLE as i agreed to pay 0 dollars they sent it to me its mine to keep haha amazon... <that is it

I've been following most of this thread, and I don't think it's been brought up, but has anyone considered what might happen if this situation was reversed...?

Suppose that there's a digital camera that retails for $200, but because of some IT glitch or human error (or whatever caused this "DVD deal" to occur), the price is marked for $350. If 1,000 people buy that camera, agree to the invoice, enter their credit card information and complete the transaction, should those people be entitled to go back to Amazon and complain about getting their $150 back?

Many of you are claiming that once you agree to the invoice price, charge your credit card, and complete the transaction, then the deal is done, right? And therefore you should get to keep your DVDs...Well what if Amazon says that to you in this case? Should they get to keep your $150, despite the fact that you could've bought the same camera anywhere else for only $200? Or would Amazon be entitled to say to you "You agreed to the invoice, so sorry."

I'm not taking anyone's side here, but just thought it might be some food for thought...

I nominate this one :

If the price that shows up during the checkout process is $350, the price that shows up on confirmation emails is $350, and the price that shows up on my final invoice is $350 then yes, it would probably be my fault for agreeing to the transaction and not canceling the order when I saw that the price I had been charged was $350. I could complain to Amazon about it, but they would certainly have the right to say that I have to pay what I agreed to.

Now, if the price that shows up during the checkout process is $200, but Amazon charges me $350 without getting my approval, then I would fully expect them to refund me the $150 they charged me without my permission.

If I buy a camera at Store A for $500 then two months later it is marked down for $50, I can't demand that Store A refund me the $450 if their return policy expires after 30 days. I could argue that, "I made a huge mistake when I bought this camera for $500. You guys knew ahead of time that this product was going to be marked down, so you knowingly cheated me out of $450." I doubt I would have much of a case even if I had proof that the store knew ahead of time that they were going to drastically reduce the price of the camera in a few months.

If that was the situation, I believe most, if not all, customers would be elated if Amazon decided to refund the difference. But Amazon would be under no obligation to do so. And if instead customers decided to initiate a chargeback for the difference they felt they were owed, how do you think Amazon would react?

We need Professor Kingsley to sort this mess out.

I may have acted too soon when I gave SkullOrchard my vote. Wherever romuo came from I hope he stays a little longer. You can't have this much fun for free anywhere else!

I understand what you're saying, but in both scenarios, Amazon is ultimately at fault - Human or technical error on their part in both scenarios caused the price glitch. So they are at fault, and in my eyes would be expected to take the loss for their mistake.

I think the closest you'll get is if say, you went onto eBay, bid $100 instead of $1, then didn't realise your mistake until days after bidding had ended and you were expected to pay.

Would I like to be able to pay the original $1 and get the rest of my money back? Of course. Would I feel perfectly entitled to it? Not if it was my mistake that I took far too long to realise or do anything about. (I know there are eBay contingencies that allow you to back out of winning bids, etc., but that's the closest I could come up with)

If I were in an Amazon exec's shoes looking at this scenario and the potential loss? I'd realise full well that it was my company at fault. Which they apparently do if the few email responses that have been fully read and answered are anything to go by.

But the thing is it's not us who came up with this idea. This is one of Amazon's purchase terms, as quoted somewhere in this thread.

I'm one of the people who has made orders and gotten the email. I'm an international customer, which means I'm due to pay more whether I send them back or not according to their "rules".

Personally, I'm not mad at all that that they are wanting to recoup losses over this. But it is ultimately their self-imposed terms and conditions that forbid them from doing anything about it. Which makes the audacity of them quoting said T&Cs in email reponses as reasons we should pay up all the more silly - Their rules. And it's Amazon who want to break them now.

I wouldn't even mind having to send them back at all, providing my international return expenses would be covered and the initial postage refunded. But after a polite and courteous email asking if these expenses would be covered was met with the CSR team ignoring all questions and firing off a redundant cookie-cutter response quoting the very Terms and Conditions they aren't following, it's hard to want to try and be helpful and return anything.

(Apologies if the above sounded argumentative. Tone is hard to put across on the internet.)

so wait.. the guy had a good point..so after you buy and complete transaction u feel great price matching it in 30 days..wowwweee an excellent and great thing for you, but amazons glitch and they have no right at all- absolutely none...hmmm

btw..dont forget the promotion was written correctly they did not PROMOTE" the thing wrongly they had execution problems..people who know how to read and READ the promotion knew what they were ENTITLED too..now come on people..

btw..ur still better off with the promotion done correctly than without..how low can you go??? ask yourself that simple question

side note: international buyers should be more cautious of such things...risk= potential for loss...

Yep, that's because some stores have a policy that you can price match a purchase within 30 days if the store lowers the price within that time. It's called a store policy.

Just like Amazon has a policy that they can cancel any orders on their site if there's a misprice. They save a lot of money by cancelling orders that are mispriced and not shipping the product to the customer. The customer can't do anything about it because Amazon will just point out that their policy specifically states that they can refuse to honor orders that they believe are wrongly priced. And Amazon is correct. They don't have to accept your payment and ship out mispriced items because their policy provides them the option of refusing to fulfill any such orders.

However, I don't remember anything in their policy that said they can sell you an item, accept your money, ship you the item and then bill you later on for more than you authorized. If you can point out the section in their store policy that says so, I'll be more than happy to pay the extra charges.

If a customer has to abide by whatever policy a store decides on, shouldn't that store have to abide by its own policy too?

Huh, I was always under the impression that lawyers would have a pretty decent grasp on things such as, oh, I don't know, punctuation, grammar, and spelling. Then again, I didn't take the class, so what would I know?

-Toilet Dcuk

He's not a lawyer, but he plays one on DVDTalk.

We have a winner.

im not a lawyer..
im using an international keyboard and its a pain in the ass to try to figure out where the correct punctuation marks are at..dont be so quick to judge my punctuation ability..

no way am i playing a lawyer role im playing a knowledge role because it seems some people here have no idea AT ALL about rules, laws and policies. all i did was provide knowledge about the real world and not some unrealistic world some are living in.

btw..you guys talk so much about policy this policy that..and noone seems to talk about the wording of the promotion which was obviously worded in a way that makes you wrong.

>personally the funny thing is that im used to this kind of discussions going on between cheap and poor college students, but i dont belive that that is the audience here, which makes this sad...thats the only reason i even bothered to post in the first place.

ive been screwed by companies,..but this situation in no way even HINTS that anyone got screwed by amazon (international orders are a slightly different situation, and harder to deal with)

id like to conclude my discussion on this matter by leaving you with this.
dont think that when you cheat someone and they try going after you that they are in the wrong..legally and ethically they could go after you, it doesnt just end with..i authorized 0 dollars and i aint paying a penny more

I hope romuo sticks around for a while, because I find his posts very funny. I hope toiletduck sticks around, because I like his name.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...