Understanding the CPA, electronically

GreGorGy

GreGorGy

BULLSFAN
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
15,290
Reaction score
1,527
Location
Benoniebfkweesnie
The recent BoB/FirstShop escapade revealed just how little we know of the CPA when any one part of the paradigm changes. Since its beginnings, I have tried to understand it as best I can and I do research every little part of it whenever it looks like something changed. I still have no idea how it works (or if it even works) so I started this thread for myself and others to explain our understanding and then question it and hopefully have answers to those questions. I'll start:

I have seen in shops like Matrix, a sign that reads no refunds no exceptions basically. Goods will be exchanged if faulty and that's it. I believe that in these instances, Matrix is in direct contrast to the act - yet, the policy seems to be at a group level, where surely someone should know best. So, who is wrong? Me or Matrix?
 
In the BoB/FirstShop incident, where incorrect pricing was displayed via a number of channels, this applies:

Section 23 (9) a and b.

(9) If a price as displayed contains an inadvertent and obvious error, the supplier is not bound by it after —
(a) correcting the error in the displayed price; and
(b) taking reasonable steps in the circumstances to inform consumers to whom the erroneous price may have been displayed of the error and the correct price.
Click to expand...
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
In the BoB/FirstShop incident, where incorrect pricing was displayed via a number of channels, this applies:
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, does this still apply after payment is made, receipt of payment is confirmed and company informs you that the order is being processed?
 
Last edited:
TheGrove said:
Out of curiosity, does this still apply after payment is made, receipt of payment is confirmed and company informs you that the order is being processed?
Click to expand...

That's a fairly automated process, that can all happen without anything more than the consumer paying. Interesting question though.
 
TheGrove said:
Out of curiosity, does this still apply after payment is made, receipt of payment is confirmed and company informs you that the order is being processed?
Click to expand...

Yes it would. I think the challenge with the CPA though is that it focused too much on brick-and-mortar shops and neglected aspects of the online world. Online a wrongly marked product is purchased within seconds without any human intervention and an error might only be picked up at picking&packing or at a later stage. I think Firstshop had incorrect pricing from at least Friday and was only picked up on Monday.

Another interesting example of the CPA in the online world is that the seller carries the risk of the product until the buyer has accepted delivery. So a parcel which gets lost/stolen/damaged during shipping leaves the seller accountable until the buyer receives it and even then is the buyer able to execute buyer's remorse (in which case the seller can enforce a reasonable restocking fee).

In all cases it is fair to expect that the seller will rectify the situation and in the case of Firstshop it is ludicrous for buyers to expect that a store fulfils orders of wrongly priced products. I think Firstshop went above what they were supposed to do by offering a discount. Also remember that the number of orders placed was huge and manually cancelling orders, issuing vouchers and sending individual communication is a time consuming task.
 
TheGrove said:
Out of curiosity, does this still apply after payment is made, receipt of payment is confirmed and company informs you that the order is being processed?
Click to expand...

This was addressed in the Hardware Bargains thread but I will repost here, because it is my understanding. Of course, I started this thread because I need to expand my understanding so don't take my word for it:

K-VI said:
I actually believe that they have a big decision to make. According to the CPA, (And I know people don't like that I am bringing in law. I don't intend to sue them.) they have to give it to people who have already concluded the purchase.
Click to expand...

Noted exceptions to the CPA include ECTA, ch7, whose own Consumer Protection caveats will apply, noting the following:

(1) This Chapter applies only to electronic transactions.
(2) Section 44 does not apply to an electronic transaction—*
...
(b) by way of an auction;
...
(e) where the price for the supply of goods or services is dependent on fluctuations in the financial markets and which cannot be controlled by the supplier;
...
Click to expand...

We are all very ignorant around the CPA and I suggest a separate discussion is held where we can clarify our own interpretations.
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
Yes it would. I think the challenge with the CPA though is that it focused too much on brick-and-mortar shops and neglected aspects of the online world. Online a wrongly marked product is purchased within seconds without any human intervention and an error might only be picked up at picking&packing or at a later stage. I think Firstshop had incorrect pricing from at least Friday and was only picked up on Monday.

Another interesting example of the CPA in the online world is that the seller carries the risk of the product until the buyer has accepted delivery. So a parcel which gets lost/stolen/damaged during shipping leaves the seller accountable until the buyer receives it and even then is the buyer able to execute buyer's remorse (in which case the seller can enforce a reasonable restocking fee).

In all cases it is fair to expect that the seller will rectify the situation and in the case of Firstshop it is ludicrous for buyers to expect that a store fulfils orders of wrongly priced products. I think Firstshop went above what they were supposed to do by offering a discount. Also remember that the number of orders placed was huge and manually cancelling orders, issuing vouchers and sending individual communication is a time consuming task.
Click to expand...

Thanks, exactly what I thought, the orders should be cancelled and users refunded, that was the fair thing to do however a chap in the office spent most of yesterday arguing that the CPA would be against them in the case of an order being paid for, even though it was manual payment and a person that confirmed, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X