February 16, 2007 at 6:59 am
The customer saw the promotion to be buy one, get one free. You were planning on paying for one, so pay up. It's your own greediness if you saw that there was no charge and then decided to take advantage of the glitch by adding tons more to your cart!
Most of the examples given here about other companies sucking it up are irrelevant. You cannot make the same comparison with the incidents that Hoover and Starbucks made. Their offers were flawed in their theory; not in the implementation.
Amazon has every right to claim what's owed.
February 16, 2007 at 7:11 am
I too think it is obvious that the consumer should expect to pay for what he recieved.
I think that even though the other party in this transaction happens to be a corporation the golden rule still applies.
If you were the party in this transaction that made the mistake you wouldn't want to lose money.
The only reason a question arises is when greed enters and someone thinks they should get something for nothing.
-cas
February 16, 2007 at 7:38 am
I've had bad dealings with Amazon in the past so I'm biased, but I know I'd fight it tooth and nail. Who's to say I have the money to pay for it now? It's 2-3 months after I bought it and now they charge me for it?
Next thing you know you'll pay $60 for RAM and the next week a factory burns down sending prices up to $80. Amazon sends you an email saying send it back or we're charging you for the difference. This is a slippery slope and that's why there's a line drawn at the time of the transcation. After you pay them (even if they want $0.00) and they give you your item as promised it's a done deal.
February 16, 2007 at 7:51 am
Anyone that has to ask, "What's the right thing to do?" has a problem with their moral compass.
If you agreed to the terms of the sale, you honor it. If you notice a billing error, you notify all parties involved right away and take steps to rectify it.
People make mistakes...get over it.
where "you" = you, me, EVERYBODY!
I long for the days when a hand shake was better than a signed contract!
P.S. My great grand father paid off his LAST debt from The Great Depression in 1975.
Take care,
Bert
"Speculations? I know nothing about speculations. I'm resting on certainties. I know that my Redeemer lives, and because He lives, I shall live also." - Michael Faraday
February 16, 2007 at 7:51 am
I think the right thing to do is to honor the deal - buy one get one free. Not get two free.
Having said that, Amazon is lucky that in this case, it is even possible for them to try recouping costs via credit card. If this were a regular store and it was a mistake where lots of people somehow walked out with two items and paid nothing (no charge, no cash), then it would be much easier for many people to silently accept the mistake. That's defrauding the store, but because it is much harder to force those people to pay, you'd see only the more honest ones come back and let themselves get charged.
I know I'd pay what I was supposed to. Just to be on the safe side, and also because I'd rather do the right thing. But, honestly, I wouldn't judge someone else who would decide not to pay if there were no way to force them to. I think that decision is up to each person. The difference here is that the company can extract the money later on anyway because of the technology involved. On the street, though, if everyone picked up a newspaper while the owner wasn't looking, the newsstand would soon be out of business with little ability to get any of the money back. And anyone who took the newspapers would be guilty of shoplifting.
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
February 16, 2007 at 8:12 am
"Anyone that has to ask, "What's the right thing to do?" has a problem with their moral compass. " Bert Carles.
Right on Bert. If you agreed to the offer, then follow through. So much of what is wrong with this world today is people wanting something for nothing, or those who would take unfair advantage of someone because of ignorance or mistakes, big companies not excluded here.
What goes around comes around and when they are on the other end of this, then they are screaming because someone took advantage of them. A word or hand shake should be all that is needed to get along in an ethical and honest world. I intend to live that way even if others don't because I sleep better at night never waiting for the "other shoe to fall".
Thanks for the reminders Bert and all.
Steve
February 16, 2007 at 8:21 am
I think there are two classes of customer in this situation:
First, the customer who, in good faith placed an order for items that included two dvd sets and used the coupon. They didn't notice a price discrepancy and paid for the balance of the order. These customers should be left alone.
Second, the customer who placed an order for the dvd sets and used the coupon receiving a price of $0.00. They could not help but notice a price discrepancy and didn't pay for the order. These customers should be requested to pay and then pursued legally.
In the first case, the customer can be presumed to have made the transaction in good faith, they paid for an order, and probably didn't notice the difference until after the transaction had been processed. In the second case, the customer could not have been acting in good faith as they were not charged for the transaction.
I think the solutions above fulfill the legal, moral, and fiduciary responsibilities of Amazon and the customer.
As for the technical and personnel aspects, it seems to me that Amazon probably has some sort of coupon system already in place for their online store, I can't imagine that they modify the shopping cart every time they have a promotion. So, presumably, there was a longtime bug in the shopping cart that hadn't been discovered, or there was a problem with the data entry for this particular coupon. In the first case, it was missed by the developers and by QA and it could have been sitting around for quite a while. In the second case the data entry system for coupons should be investigated to see if there is a way to prevent this kind of error in the future. Fix it and move on. Changes should probably be made to the cart to flag or question any $0.00 totals so this kind of thing gets handled before shipment.
JimFive
February 16, 2007 at 8:23 am
"if we lived in a fluffy world we would either return the goods or accept the charge"
however thinking big scale, Amazon should be punished by this mistake to make sure that they do not do it again in the future. I am glad for once that the law seems to be on the side of the consumer and not the big coperation (if they do start charging credit cards the law will turn out less justified). Big corporate often have more responsibility than a delivering a few DVDS here and there. If it was TOTAL who had just spilt oil all over your local beach, you would expect compensation or punishment.
It is human nature to make mistakes but with pressure from others and cared about practices we can minimize these mistakes.
February 16, 2007 at 8:36 am
I see people keep bringing up the 'the agreement was buy one, get two'. But the final agreement/contract occurs when Amazon shows you the final page with the cost and you have to approve it. At that time, they are offering you two for free.
It didn't happen to me, so I don't really know what I would have done.....but I believe I would have cancelled the sale and called them on the phone.
-SQLBill
February 16, 2007 at 8:37 am
Bert-
Your great grand father paid off his debt many years later because he was an honorable man. I am guessing that lesson was passed down through your family.
Scott
February 16, 2007 at 9:03 am
Simple statements for the situation (it really is a very simple situation).
I would expect to be charged <period>. Granted a mistake was made, but you never get something for nothing. When it comes to blame, it is the process <period>.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
February 16, 2007 at 9:10 am
Years back I worked for a marketing firm that accidentally mailed coupons for free oil changes to thousands of people at a specific car dealer, due to a software bug. The coupons were supposed to be for a $10 discount. My firm paid up. The customers were happy. The dealer was happy. We revamped our testing procedures. I heard that the firm I worked for had insurance to cover the cost of the error.
February 16, 2007 at 9:14 am
I can see that that might matter for some people who rushed through the screens without seeing anything but the last one. Realistically speaking, though, I bet most of the cases were people remembering the first page, seeing the $0.00 and thinking, "Hey, I can get something for free!"
That seems a little different from what I think are cases where a customer can morally keep the money they weren't charged. For example, if one item out of a big shopping list comes up 50 cents or even a dollar short and you notice it when you get home, sorry, I don't think someone needs to run back to the supermarket to avoid moral condemnation.
On the other hand, two free DVDs when most likely the person just saw that the deal was buy one get one free a couple of web screens before is a different matter. Most likely most of the people noticed and figured they'd try to get away with it. I don't think that's right. At the same time, I'm not saying to pile on the customers. Companies do many shady things too. It's just that doing the same thing back to them (or trying to) doesn't make either action morally correct.
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html
February 16, 2007 at 9:40 am
In my state, and several others, Amazon could face criminal charges if they tried to charge those credit cards after the fact. Since the charge would not have been authorized by the cardholder, it would be considered a fraudulent charge, and if done intentionally, it would be considered a criminal act. Also, since the advent of electronic checkouts the customer is entitled to purchase the item at the lowest price listed, and if a difference is discovered, the customer is entitled to a refund of the difference between the price they actually paid and the lowest price advertised.
However you look at it, in this case the law in my state is on the side of the consumer and it is up to the retailer to ensure the pricing is correct at the time of checkout. None of those consumers can be required to pay any more or return anything. Amazon should be more careful next time. They are probably lucky they are not being investigated by the FTC for violating the Fair Credit Billing Act or the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/payments.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/etailalrt.htm
Finally, Amazon's own policy states that they confirm the prices at the time of order because the prices may vary.
http://amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/002-3504943-4261604?ie=UTF8&nodeId=468502#confirm
Because of that statement on Amazon's website, I'm guessing the FTC will not need to take any action. There will be lawyers all over this with class-action lawsuits seeking punitive damages. Amazon should have just let this one go because now not only will they lose the money on the sales, they will lose money in FTC fines and lawsuit judgements.
Joshua Perry
http://www.greenarrow.net
February 16, 2007 at 9:54 am
Almost everyone who's posted agrees that anyone who bought the DVDs should expect to pay for them after Amazon figured it out. Many also say that those who noticed the error on checkout should have notified Amazon right away. Hmm. How many of us would actually do that? I probably would not do so.
I do my own taxes (US) by hand on paper because I'm just a math-loving control-freak. I know too much about computer programming to trust a computer program with my taxes. A few years ago I get a note back from the IRS saying, "you made a mistake on your taxes." The mistake wasn't specified, but I got about $800 back! I went over my taxes to find out how I made such a mistake. Turns out, I didn't. If my Schedule C-EZ income from consulting was entered with a negative sign (not even allowed on C-EZ), then I would get that refund amount.
Do you think that I told the IRS about that? Nope. (Hoping no one from the IRS is reading this now...)
Maybe it's the human factor. If a cashier accidentally hands you a 20 instead of a 10... Well, most of us know that the cashier will get in trouble for being short at the end of the shift and may even have the money taken out of their check. There's a human standing right there in front of you who will take the blame for that mistake. And when you hand back the money, the cashier is grateful and you leave the store feeling like a good samaritan.
Maybe whether one returns accidentally obtained money depends on the likelihood of receiving gratitude for that action. Hmm...
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply