R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-11-2006, 01:35 AM   #1
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 123
Send a message via MSN to Apexs
Default order cancelled

What do you think about this, yesterday morning while I was searching rc sites I noticed a Gravel Hound was listed at 0.00 , so I thought I would go ahead and order one just to see what would happen.

The order went through and payment was made via paypal ,

Order Number: 55
Detailed Invoice: http://www.%%%%%.com
Date Ordered: Sunday 10 December, 2006

Products
------------------------------------------------------
1 x Tamiya (#58328) GRAVEL HOUND 4WD Off-Road Racer (DF-02) W/ESC (58328) = $0.00
------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total: $0.00
Zone Rates (Air Mail : 2500 gram(s)): $39.00
Total: $39.00

The only problem I had was when the paypal invoice came, I had been charged for shipping twice,

Item Price: $39.00 USD
Total Postage: $39.00 USD
Total: $78.00 USD

I thought nothing of this for a few hours, and carried on searching, few hrs later I though I know I will be cheeky now and send a email to them, so I made a small email with the order number etc and just said, “Hi im emailing you reguarding this order because i have been charged for shipping twice”.

Few hrs later and still no reply, but I notice the site has now corrected the pricing mistake, so on I go with my searching etc and forget all about it, until this morning I get email, one with the only legible word of “cancel” in it and one from paypal saying xxxxx has issued you a full or partial refund for your payment.
Please do not reply to this email. Email sent to this address cannot be answered.

Message from Seller:
refund for wrong order.

Do you think this was a good way for them to handle it? Should they of fulfilled the order? I do not mind to much about the out come, im just unhappy at how it was dealt with lol, a simple email saying sorry but the price was a mistake etc would have been how I would of done it, oh well.
Apexs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:15 AM   #2
Tech Addict
 
Eggyolkeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 637
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

That's hilarious! I remember seeing an item at Tower Hobbies once for $30,000. I thought that was a bit steep for a tool at the time. This must happen once in a while.

You know, if you had any evidence of the advertised price, eg a screen grab, you would definitely have had a case and could pursue either via paypal or otherwise. In fact if you have the invoice with the amounts you should send to Paypal. Worth a shot I reckon!
Eggyolkeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:52 AM   #3
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

It's obvious that they wouldn't sell a Gravel Hound for nothing. Accept that they made a mistake and leave it at that.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 03:04 AM   #4
Tech Addict
 
Eggyolkeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 637
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

It's obvious yes, but why not take them up on their mistake?

I don't know about over there, but in Australia if something is incorrectly marked then you're entitled to it at the lower price. No questions asked. If the store is clumsy enough to make the mistake they have to honour the price.

I'm not saying it's worth fighting for in this instance, but if you wanted to you'd be victorious.
Eggyolkeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 08:15 AM   #5
Tech Champion
 
F. Mendoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,233
Trader Rating: 79 (100%+)
Default

If they advertised it. If you paid for it. They legally have to honor it. You can persue this legally as far as I know. You paid for it on Paypal, it's yours. Good luck if you decide to go for it. Let us know the turnout.
__________________
RC America - Xray - Hudy - Gravity RC - KO Propo - Super Rad Graphics

Mr. Shookie goes home 10-06-08. Bill Levinson 4-14-15
F. Mendoza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 09:57 AM   #6
Tech Elite
 
glassdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,250
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Maybe if it was like $1.25 or something.... maybe.

But if it's priced at $0.00.... come on guys. They are not obligated to "sell" you anything for free just because the site says that. Especially since it was $0.00

It is funny, and more funny if you actually did "buy" something for nothing...but...

Stores do not have to sell you anything for a stupid price, just because it's marked wrong. They can choose to do that and make a lucky customer happy, but they don't have to.

I work around auto dealers all day... and I see cars marked wrong once in a while... like $2599 instead of $25999... so that means they must sell that car to me for the marked price and they eat the other twenty grand ????

I don't think so.
glassdoctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 10:01 AM   #7
Tech Elite
 
glassdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,250
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

You won't get anywhere legally with this, btw.

When you argue your "case" and explain how the price was $0.00 and you expect them to honor it....they will laugh at you.

Common sense rules.
glassdoctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:41 PM   #8
Tech Addict
 
Eggyolkeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 637
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Well I don't know what legal system you guys are running on but in Australia, which is based on English Common Law, the retailer is obligated to sell at the marked price. Doesn't matter if it is $0. See the Trade Practices Act, s54.

Encourages them to not make a mistake.

Common sense rules? What are you like 10 years old?

America is the most litigious country in the world. A person can sue for health issues arising from passive smoking. Surely common sense rules? Someone sues because they spilt their McDonalds coffee on themselves and it "was too hot". Ooh, surely common sense rules.

You idiot.

Last edited by Eggyolkeo; 12-11-2006 at 02:56 PM.
Eggyolkeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 09:15 PM   #9
Tech Addict
 
RussB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 736
Send a message via MSN to RussB
Default

i got the entire dvd box set of "band of brothers" for $9.99 from kmart.com. it usually sells for $99.99. they honored the price for a day.

i've never seen the show, but i bought it to gift it out thinking i could find somebody interested.
RussB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 10:29 PM   #10
Tech Fanatic
 
Bit_Rusty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggyolkeo
It's obvious yes, but why not take them up on their mistake?

I don't know about over there, but in Australia if something is incorrectly marked then you're entitled to it at the lower price. No questions asked. If the store is clumsy enough to make the mistake they have to honour the price.

I'm not saying it's worth fighting for in this instance, but if you wanted to you'd be victorious.
I dont know if that's not 100% right. If an item scans at a higher price than it was marked, then you'll get it for free. That's a semi-voluntary code of practice.

The question here comes from legal studies, 101. Classic, classic piece of precedent... was it a cake shop? pharmacy? i forget... but it's basic contract law.. offer and acceptance.

I would suggest that listing the product for $0 was an invitation to treat... but the lines of offer and acceptance are blurred when a computer is processing the sale. Is putting credit card details in considered to be an offer?

Can a computer accept an offer (i.e. act as an agent) on behalf of the store owner? Or is acceptance reserved for a human being?

Would make an interesting legal case... although i probably suspect there's some precedent floating around out there already....
Bit_Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 10:53 PM   #11
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 129
Default

okay, i was going to let it go, but must respond to the misconception of americans being sue happy. all the statistics show that most of the increase litigation in this country is the result of more litigation between u.s. and foreign companies and u.s. companies suing other u.s. companies, not people/individuals suing mcdonalds or tobacco companies.

also, the only reason tobacco companies got sued in this country is because they made millions of dollars and didn't disclose the dangerous effects of their product. obviously, everyone knows now...so you won't see many more of these lawsuits...the age of individuals that fit the class of people that were misled has pretty much passed away. also, as result of these lawsuits, public places here in the u.s. are going smoke free, tobacco companies are spending money on educating youth on the effects of smoking, etc etc. litigation equalled progress.

lastly, mcdonalds got sued for hot coffee because they knowingly kept their coffee 25 degrees hotter than the industry standard. they had several other burn victims and didn't change their policy. the women involved received 3rd degree burns to her private parts, spent a month in the hospital, and had $300,000 in medical bills. it wasn't like she just had a dry cleaning bill to pay. the jury gave her $2.9 million for mcdonalds intentional conduct which represented one day of coffee sales for mcdonalds in the u.s...this was reduced on appeal to $600,000. i say she got screwed, and mcdonalds got off easy. since the lawsuit, no more burn victims. litigation equals progress, yet again.

enough legal talk....let's avoid these topics, i can't deal with all the unfounded stray remarks. p.s. good for you if you read this whole post!
4times is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 11:10 PM   #12
Tech Master
 
Doug D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,490
Trader Rating: 54 (100%+)
Default

Apexs - The only way you'd have a case is if you can prove false advertising or deceptive trade practices, which in this case is clearly not evident. If the company sent you the RC Car and then tried to charge you, then you'd have a case.

The funniest thing about this thread is how this guy was trying to get something for nothing and then complains about how the company handled it...

Eggy - Your right, America is the most litigious place on earth, and this case would be a classic example of why......its ridiculous!
Doug D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 11:56 PM   #13
Tech Addict
 
Eggyolkeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 637
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Hey 4times. Excellent post. My hat goes off to you - it goes to show the positives in these situations.

I was trying to explain that the law isn't about common sense at all. We're definitely way off topic.

I guess two things could sum this thread up. Firstly if these seemingly absurd litigious actions result in a positive outcome for the general public then they're not extreme. Secondly if we see another zero dollar bargain like that we'll always 'ave a go! Worth a shot!
Eggyolkeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2006, 01:53 AM   #14
Tech Apprentice
 
PIITB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 98
Default

no you cant take them up on it, either legally or morally/ethically.

i cant beleive your crying foul just coz you beleive you should of gotten something for $0.00

if they had it for like $50, then yes one may assume that is a legitimate price.

but $0, to anyone with half a brain, can tell its a mistake.
PIITB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2006, 02:24 AM   #15
Tech Elite
 
Turbo Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 4,878
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug D
Eggy - Your right, America is the most litigious place on earth, and this case would be a classic example of why......its ridiculous!
Only problem is that 90% of it is one company suing another (or itself). That's just a BS righty talking point.
Turbo Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CANCELLED: FS: NIB (NEW IN BOX) - FT B44 Kit + NIP (New in Package) Accessory tom_chang79 R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 0 07-30-2008 07:32 PM
07 GP Touring Car World Cup cancelled academygaz Electric On-Road 7 09-18-2007 07:49 PM
HPI Cancelled the 1/8th Proceed >_< Danzo Nitro On-Road 13 10-16-2006 04:01 AM
Is Race #2 At Tq Hobbies Cancelled? Tim Kowal Florida Racing 6 02-27-2005 01:43 PM
ACT Titles at Kambah CANCELLED NR Australian Racing 0 09-20-2004 06:47 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 12:44 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net