Price on Webstore (201502-0086) [2015] ZACGSO 1 (11 May 2015)

Price on Webstore (201502-0086) [2015] ZACGSO 1 (11 May 2015)

The Ombud found that the supplier's website displayed prices that were so far below the actual value of the goods that a reasonable consumer would have recognized the error. Although the default legal position is that a supplier is bound by a consumer's acceptance of an online offer unless the terms specify otherwise, this does not apply where the price discrepancy is so large that consensus is lacking. The supplier's terms and the circumstances indicated that the consumer should have been aware of the mistake. The supplier was not legally obliged to deliver the goods at the incorrect price. The compensation offered by the supplier was deemed adequate for the inconvenience suffered by the...

Citation
[2015] ZACGSO 1
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Case Number
201502-0086
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed. Supplier not bound to deliver goods at incorrect price. Compensation offered by supplier is adequate.
Judges
Bonita Hughes
Legal Topics
Ecommerce Contracts, Pricing Errors, Consumer Protection Act, Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, Specific Performance, Invitation to Treat
Commercial and Corporate Ecommerce Contracts Pricing Errors Consumer Protection Act Electronic Communications and Transactions Act Specific Performance Invitation to Treat

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the supplier legally bound to deliver goods purchased online at an incorrectly advertised price?
  2. 2 Does the Consumer Protection Act or the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act govern the transaction?
  3. 3 Does a significant discrepancy between the advertised and actual price affect the enforceability of the contract?

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that the supplier's website displayed prices that were so far below the actual value of the goods that a reasonable consumer would have recognized the error. Although the default legal position is that a supplier is bound by a consumer's acceptance of an online offer unless the terms specify otherwise, this does not apply where the price discrepancy is so large that consensus is lacking. The supplier's terms and the circumstances indicated that the consumer should have been aware of the mistake. The supplier was not legally obliged to deliver the goods at the incorrect price. The compensation offered by the supplier was deemed adequate for the inconvenience suffered by the...

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed. Supplier not bound to deliver goods at incorrect price. Compensation offered by supplier is adequate.

Orders

  • The supplier is not required to deliver the goods at the incorrectly advertised price.
  • The supplier's offer of a voucher and additional discount is sufficient compensation for the consumer's inconvenience.