Calling all bush lawyers - Fraudulently obtaining goods, do I have a case?

[SS90]

You know, I was siding with you on this one, and the attitude of the guy is shocking, but, really, sorry mate, I view it as
stealing. Really there attitude needs a sort out, but, erm, "the price is an invitation to buy", and if something is mispriced (TV wrongly fitted with the price tag off a can of beans for example), then they are not obliged to sell it to you for the price of the can of beans.

I think they teach that in the first year of economic studies.

The same will be true for incorrectly priced/failing discount system, you got the item far far less than the INTENDED (ledger) price, and I think that you will find the law will actually be on their side, there will certainly be a civil case to answer, perhaps not criminal (it depends how the Police see it)

I am sure that if you simply swap price tags at a shop, and pay the smaller price, that is actually considered fraud.

The basic rule in determining fraud is INTENT, and you clearly, deliberately INTENDED to reduce the price by fraudulent means.

Their coupon was INTENDED to be used on one purchase (a reasonable person would accept that), and you INTENDED to defraud them (by re-using the coupon)

In the eyes of a JP (or Judge), I would put my money on the retailer in this case.

Shame on them for having a crap system (someone should have picked it up), Shame on you for defrauding them, AND Shame on the person who has contacted you for having a shit attitude...... (although I wonder how you would act if someone brought your bike off you with counterfeit money (same same in my book)

Give it back mate, it's the right thing to do.

[Gremlin]

Tis an interesting one, legally...

They provided the coupon, he used it. If the Terms and Conditions do not explicitly state terms or conditions of use, then the law gets rather black and white quite quickly. In the same vein, a contract that is unusual by normal standards is still a legally binding contract, regardless of norms (provided both parties understand and there was no deception).

SS90, you refer to Offer and Acceptance, the basics of forming a contract (which is what purchasing a can of baked beans in a supermarket is). The shop offers you a product at x price (displayed on the shelf) and you accept by taking it and buying it. Changing the price yourself and trying to trick the store is fraud, you knew the price, and set about changing it in an unauthorised way. Now, if the store provides a coupon to discount the product, and you use their coupon, there is no fraud. There are indeed examples of coupons (or specifically, coupon codes) being re-used, the first one I think of is online pizza ordering often uses it (but agreed, not in the exact same purchase). If he had changed their system, to accept his code multiple times, then there is definitely intent to defraud, but he simply used what was provided by the store (albeit in an unintended fashion).

Using fake money knowingly is completely different. You know its fake, its absolutely fraud.

Don't trust my word tho (see, a disclaimer!)

[Jonathan]

Really there attitude needs a sort out, but, erm, "the price is an invitation to buy", and if something is mispriced (TV wrongly fitted with the price tag off a can of beans for example), then they are not obliged to sell it to you for the price of the can of beans.

If the store mislabels a tv set with the price of a can of beans it is true that they are not obliged to sell it to you. But, If they don't notice the mistake and do sell it to you for that price, money exchanges hands (offer/acceptance/consideration) then they have no legal recourse to demand the TV back later. Except in the situation Gremlin describes above where it was a dishonest customer who switched the prices.

[SS90]

Tis an interesting one, legally...

They provided the coupon, he used it. If the Terms and Conditions do not explicitly state terms or conditions of use, then the law gets rather black and white quite quickly. In the same vein, a contract that is unusual by normal standards is still a legally binding contract, regardless of norms (provided both parties understand and there was no deception).

SS90, you refer to Offer and Acceptance, the basics of forming a contract (which is what purchasing a can of baked beans in a supermarket is). The shop offers you a product at x price (displayed on the shelf) and you accept by taking it and buying it. Changing the price yourself and trying to trick the store is fraud, you knew the price, and set about changing it in an unauthorised way. Now, if the store provides a coupon to discount the product, and you use their coupon, there is no fraud. There are indeed examples of coupons (or specifically, coupon codes) being re-used, the first one I think of is online pizza ordering often uses it (but agreed, not in the exact same purchase). If he had changed their system, to accept his code multiple times, then there is definitely intent to defraud, but he simply used what was provided by the store (albeit in an unintended fashion).

Using fake money knowingly is completely different. You know its fake, its absolutely fraud.

Don't trust my word tho (see, a disclaimer!)

I agree with the offer and acceptance concept, but what about the situation where a price that is on an item is actually incorrect (for example, the teenager who works after school mislabeled the TV with the price sticker from a box of CD-rom's.

If I went up to the counter with said "Cheap" TV, the sales person/casher will see that something is up, and most likely check to be sure, and notice that the price is wrong.

The shop is in no way obliged to sell the TV to me at the low (ticket) price, as, " A price is an invitation to buy", and, infact would simply not "honor" the price no matter how hard I pushed my case.

The law has to be like this to stop every one changing price tags at whim, and getting TV's for the price of a tin of beans (otherwise the whole system of priced goods would be null and void!

I am of the opinion that the OP has, knowingly and with full intention, defrauded the retailer, perhaps "using a document to gain a pecuniary advantage", and, under NZ law, that is indeed an offence.

[Taz]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

[CookMySock]

Though I would have thought if a human cashier was dumb enough to sell it to him for that price, the cashier should be dumb enough to eat the penalty. Certainly that applies if you were to fill your car with petrol and the employee only charged you half for it - said employee would be liable for the difference. Try working as a bank employee and say "oops my teller is out by -$1,100" and see what response you get.

The web site is set up basically as a robotic replacement for the cashier, since they deem it to be more cost-efficient than having a human one on the job 24/7, so if their cashier makes the error then they should pay for it, irrespective of a human or robotic teller. If they employed the wrong cashier (read - web developer) and it fucked up and cost them money, thats no ones fault but their own. When you buy a cheap web site you get a shit one, and that principle applies with anything. I bet it wasn't very "cost effective" in this particular case.

I bet they have already angrily approached their web developer, who I bet have already (very quickly) fixed it for no charge, and they are probably fucking lucky they don't get sued for costs IMO.

Steve

[MSTRS:Me]

...
The shop is in no way obliged to sell the TV to me at the low (ticket) price, as, " A price is an invitation to buy", and, infact would simply not "honor" the price no matter how hard I pushed my case...

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.

[Okey Dokey]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (or something like that)

Honour. Integrity. What do you see when you look in the mirror?

I realise you were asking what was 'legal", but really!!!

[CookMySock]

The difference is that once the store has accepted payment, the deal is kosher, Finding out later that they sold the item too cheap is not grounds for demanding reversal of the deal. It is simply too late. Same thing applies here. The coupon was not offered on the basis of a single use, and in fact the store's system was such that the discount coupon could be applied multiple times. Since the store effectively accepted that by taking some payment and supplying the goods, then it's their tough luck.

Agree completely.

It would be fascinating to fundraise and cover his legal costs in this case, just for entertainment value.

Steve

[Katman]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

He'd turn them into enough watches so that every starving child could have one.

[sugilite:Me]

OK, to the original poster... when you decided to try the coupon again, and then proceeded to order 3 items using that method, you pretty much confirmed your pedigree. So, as long as you can look in the mirror and say "yep, I'm the kind of person that can and will rip off honest people if I possibly can" I guess you can carry on happy in the knowledge you are a dishonest person.

I run an online business and once accidentally put an item on for $0, which a regular customer from the States swooped on and did not email me about it. I was quite surprised as we had built up quite a repore over the years. I always sent a little freebie with orders anyway, with a little smiley face drawn on, for this 'freebie' I put a little sad face on. I never heard from them again, their loss as I'm the only website that offers the quality/price or can often even supply the rare crystals/rocks that they collect. So the money they 'saved' would be lost in their next purchase from another much more expensive site.

[davereid]

I realise you were asking what was 'legal", but really!!!

"To understand what's Right and Wrong, the Lawyers work in shifts..." [The Clash]

[CookMySock]

I run an online business and once accidentally put an item on for $0, which a regular customer from the States swooped on and did not email me about it. I was quite surprised as we had built up quite a repore over the years. I always sent a little freebie with orders anyway, with a little smiley face drawn on, for this 'freebie' I put a little sad face on. I never heard from them again, their loss as I'm the only website that offers the quality/price or can often even supply the rare crystals/rocks that they collect. So the money they 'saved' would be lost in their next purchase from another much more expensive site.

You were in no way obliged to sell it to him for that price. It's unfortunate that you sent it.

Steve

[wysper]

Just ask yourself - What would jesus do?

Jesus better clean the coffee off my keyboard after that comment. LOL

[sugilite:Me]

You were in no way obliged to sell it to him for that price. It's unfortunate that you sent it.

Steve

Yep, I knew that, but after discussing it with my staff, we decided to let it go and just send it more as a statement than anything. It was not a big item, because then my scottish bloodlines would of kicked in big time