I do read the small letters in job, insurance, rental and gym contracts. I thought there was not reason to worry with online purchases to Migros-Galaxus. Oh boy, I was damned wrong.
According to their T&Cs they can sell something for a price and deliver it to you home. Some days later, then claim they original sale contract is terminated because the price was wrong, and then request a payment for the price they want for the already delivered item, or return the item.
Naaaaa, this is a joke, right? Nope, it’s right here on Art 3 of their T&Cs, both in DE and EN.
To be fair, this sounds rather like an exception indeed. I personally would have honored the sale letting the customers know it was a (happy for them) mistake instead of generating that bad publicity that costs them far more than the loss they would have incurred with the wrongfullly discounted sales.
So far, I’m a pretty happy customer and recently they redelivered a product with no additional cost which was stolen at the front door of our place.
The way the seller argues, is that they claim that they’re not making an offer, and what you submit is not an order, doesn’t conclude a contract. Rather, what they display in their online shop is information and your “order” is merely your offer to sell to you, which isn’t binding until they’ve confirmed.
That’s why they can claim that the OR regulation doesn’t apply, and instead allows for price corrections and changes in delivery times.
Whether that’s lawful and holds up in court is yet to be tested.
Certainly after the seller having taken payment for the amount and having delivered the goods the contract can be considered as having been concluded. I can’t believe anyone in their right mind can think otherwise. Can you imagine the kind of abuse this can lead to?
Personally, I’d probably ignore any and all additional demands after delivery if I’d bought those glasses at 80% rebate, even if I’d never worn them yet and still had the packaging.
About 10 years ago Galaxus agreed to sell us a laptop for an unusually small price that was advertised on their website by mistake. The price difference was not drastic, but still significant, something like 15-20%.
After the renovation and modernization of our Migros I find their shields with reduced prices very misleading. They put a stand with reduced items adjusting to the stand with full prices and it is unclear, to what area is the shield “50%” applicable. Today several stands with Christmas items were together, but only one of them (the one with Advent calendars) had items with reduced prices. Luckily I use a scanner so I always make sure the reduction applied after I scanned an item. But many other people can learn only at the cashier that this item is not sold for a reduced price.
In English contract law terms the advertised price is an “invitation to treat”, your order is the offer and their acceptance is the contract (sat through enough contract law classes to get that). Consumer protection laws tend to complicate the pictur though.
IIRC, this WAS tested in the Swiss courts a few years ago and, to the surprise of no-one given Switzerland’s weak consumer protection, the courts found in favour of the vendor (edit - although this may have been that the vendor was not obliged to supply the product rather than claiming the cash afterwards - I haven’t found the case yet). I believe the underpricing has to be substantial for this to apply - maybe 70% or 80% not 20% or 30%.
This is less bad. The seller says “Sorry, I f****d up. I reviewed the numbers and I cannot deliver under that price”. Covid showed us the challenges, I bought a phone in Galaxus, 6 weeks later they said “sorry, not possible to deliver, force majeure”. Time was lost for everyone, but no damage beyond that.
As ignorant layman, I see delivering the product and then claiming more money as a whole different thing: manipulating the prices to increase sales and then recovering the money through debt collection.
Yes, as I wrote Art 23 et seqq. OR regulate this. It also serves to protect the buyer who could for the same reason challenge a contract where erroneously they have bought a home for 10000000 instead of 1000000 CHF.
I have never ever had a bad experience with Galaxus and believe this issue only is relevant for genuine errors. I don’t agree with the notion that this is somehow wilful behaviour or “showing their true colours”. I am also not a fan of overly protective EU consumer laws that generally seem to assume that all consumers are babies who cannot be responsible for their decisions.
In a physical shop, offline in general, what’s presented with a price tag is a binding offer even if the price is only 1/10 of what the seller intends. When a consumer accepts it a contract is concluded that binds both parties. See this case for instance, where the federal court instructs the lower court to determine damages (which the defendant/buyer did address) as the seller asserts error.
Some online shops claim that their content is not an offer, but rather is akin to nonbinding advertisements, basically following what you describe as English contract law. Whether that holds is AFAIA yet to be tested, I contacted the PreisĂĽberwacher a few years ago on the matter.
I’d have thought by the time the product was paid for and delivered, it was concluded, or else when does it end? What’s to stop Galaxus from issuing an invoice to every customer claiming an additional 1000 in costs otherwise please return with original packaging and condition – oops you can’t, then pay up?
Sell something back to Galaxus - they buy back used goods.
After they receive it and pay you for it, claim you got the price wrong and you want double.
They could put the following in the AGB/T&Cs like “we reserve the right to claim a contracts is null because error in prices up to 5 working days after the package left the warehouse.” Otherwise, they could sent a email about a price error in the phone I bought 3 years ago and tell the contract is not valid.
There should be a limit. Customers need some certainty that the seller will not claim null contract after some time. 3 years is a joke. But the claim from Digitec representative of “sorry, prices were wrong on a Friday and we noticed until Monday” is also a joke.
In the UK, a retailer can put whatever rubbish they want in a sales contract - and they often do.
But consumer protection laws trump these. I don’t see this as a bad thing.
It looks like Galaxus is the baby in this case and should accept they made a mistake and write it off as a goodwill gesture.
