The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Bought 8 pairs of shoes for NIS 322, the deal was canceled. What did the court say? - Walla! Business

2020-10-30T07:47:48.737Z


Does a price error obligate the seller? The answer according to a ruling received in the Hadera Small Claims Court is not: "It should have been clear to the plaintiff that the price shown is too low."


  • Business

Bought 8 pairs of shoes for NIS 322, the deal was canceled.

What did the court say?

Does a price error obligate the seller?

The answer according to a ruling received in the Hadera Small Claims Court is not: "It should have been clear to the plaintiff that the price shown is too low."

Tags

  • Shoes

Michal Raz-Haimovich

Friday, 30 October 2020, 07:02

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

  • Abu Dhabi Emirates

  • Jordan Harel Lazar For You

  • Netanyahu in a speech 40 signatures in the Knesset: "The opposition is wasting ...

  • Trump held an election rally in Nebraska 28.10.20

  • Italy: Corona demonstrations expand, clashes with police ...

  • Men are waiting for their wives while they shop

  • The Prime Minister at the control headquarters of the police in Beit Dagan.

  • The corona angle video leads to starvation

  • A rabbi from Bnei Brak calls for the introduction of Shabbat early for Trump

  • Cabinet approves peace agreement with UAE ...

In the video: Self-employed people burn goods in Tel Aviv demanding the opening of street shops (Photo: Dana Yarkatzi)

One of the interesting consumer issues deals with price mistakes: those that catch the marketers with ‘unreasonable’ prices for products and those that are sometimes done deliberately when the marketer enjoys the buzz that arises after.

But the basic question for consumers is whether a price error obliges the seller and in such a case the customer is always right?

The answer according to a ruling received in the Hadera Small Claims Court is no.



According to the

ruling, the court expects consumers not to be completely innocent.

This is a lawsuit filed by a consumer against the USHOPS website. He claims that in April he received a marketing message from his US stores about footwear brands in his mailbox. considered and received the confirmation email for booking. the next day, they had made contact representatives of the site and were wrong not to honor the invitation in light of the error rate. he wanted to clarify the matter legally, and after a few days returned to him and suggested that he get two pairs of shoes.



customer refused and canceled and the customer wins This is where the story unfolded in the Small Claims Court. He filed the lawsuit for a sum of NIS 11,000, claiming that the company violated the law according to which the price displayed on the product determines. His claim was based on a section of the Consumer Protection Law that stipulates compensation where: At the price displayed on the goods, according to section 17B (d), even if their price at the checkout is higher - and the dealer did not act accordingly. "US



Shops argued in defense that the plaintiff received a mailing link with the purchase of footwear products marketed on its website. 45% was displayed in a large, bold font next to the e button

Click.

"It is not possible for the plaintiff to order 8 pairs of shoes at a price of about NIS 40 per pair of shoes instead of an average price of about NIS 145, the price that would have been received after the discount without being aware that a mistake had been made."

Defendant argued that "any reasonable purchaser should understand that a 45% discount does not entitle him to the unreasonable price at which he demands to receive the products."

From here she referred to the terms of use of her website according to which she claimed that she is so protected under a section that states that the company reserves the right to approve, reject or restrict any order on the website.

And another clause stating that "if there is an error in the price, the company may contact the consumer to pay the difference or cancel the order."

(Promoted Content)

The weekly tip: choose the perfect bedroom for you

In collaboration with Shomrat Hazorea

To the full article

Still a slightly different deal than shopping at the store

"We all make purchases online and most of us do not read all the terms"

The plaintiff went on to argue that there was no mistake in the price and that at no stage in the transaction was it required to approve the terms of use or bylaws on which the defendant relied - a claim the defendant contradicted when she demonstrated to the court that a transaction could not be completed without passing the bylaws.

Judge Ehud Kaplan was under the impression that this was the case and even noted what was clear to all consumers "We all make purchases online and most of us do not read all the terms - but approve them - but that does not mean that the terms do not obligate us."



He added that "indeed the Consumer Protection Law requires the dealer to sell at the price presented, but only in the case of a transaction, ie in terms of contract law there was an offer and there was acceptance of the offer. In the case before me: the terms of use of the site become the creators - online advertising is no longer an offer "The contracts, but it is only an invitation to make offers, and the purchase approval by the buyer is not an acceptance, but an offer, which the defendant reserves the right to refuse."



This is explicitly stipulated and the freedom of contract must be respected.

In other words: "There was no meeting of desires between the parties to the alleged transaction - and therefore the transaction did not come to the world's air."

He further noted the principle of good faith: "In the performance of a contract one must act in good faith and in the usual way, and in this case it is clear, or should have been clear, to the plaintiff that the price shown is too low given the percentage discount "Insistence that is inconsistent with the duty of good faith."

Overall dismissed the claim.

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Source: walla

All business articles on 2020-10-30

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.