Online Coupon Error

[osmos]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

I recently purchased an item online, and used a custom coupon that I received from customer service. The coupon was only supposed to be 5%, but thanks to a clerical error, the coupon was for 55%.

Is the company legally entitled to the extra 50% I didn't pay? Can they legally charge the extra cost to my credit card, or can they sue me in court if I refuse to pay the extra 50%?

 

[cyjeff]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois

I recently purchased an item online, and used a custom coupon that I received from customer service. The coupon was only supposed to be 5%, but thanks to a clerical error, the coupon was for 55%.

Is the company legally entitled to the extra 50% I didn't pay? Can they legally charge the extra cost to my credit card, or can they sue me in court if I refuse to pay the extra 50%?

There are way too many variables here that we don't know.

Does the coupon say anything about errors or mistakes? Does the website?

 

[racer72]

So you want to know if it's alright to steal because of an error? How would you feel if the mistake went the other way, you were charged too much, and they refused to give a refund?

 

[osmos]

So you want to know if it's alright to steal because of an error? How would you feel if the mistake went the other way, you were charged too much, and they refused to give a refund?

No, I don't. I'm not asking you for moral advice. I asked if I would be legally liable.

As far as I know, the website and coupon said nothing about errors or mistakes.

 

[Zigner]

No, I don't. I'm not asking you for moral advice. I asked if I would be legally liable.

Laws are based on morals. I guess you're not too concerned about either...

 

[osmos]

No, laws are just rules created by someone and adhered to by the majority of the population. For example, in Illinois, it is illegal to fish while sitting on a giraffe’s neck. Is that a reflection of anyone's morals?

But all of this is besides the point. I asked a few questions, and I would like them answered. If you don't have any more to contribute than "This is against my morals, and should be against yours too", then please don't post a reply.

 

[cyjeff]

Fine.

Then you will be charged back the other fifty percent. It will be legal.

You know it was wrong. They know it was wrong.

Therefore, they will make it right.

You lose.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Laws are based on morals.

Zinger, we've had our issues, but that is the smartest thing I've ever read on this forum.

Really, no joke. I think it the reason why all those who post rubbish without legal content are very important to the responses.

May I use it as my signature?

 

[HappyWanderer]

No, laws are just rules created by so meone and adhered to by the majority of the population. For example, in Illinois, it is illegal to fish while sitting on a giraffe’s neck. Is that a reflection of anyone's morals?

First, I'm cynical. Who profits from such a law? Second, but with more relevance, what was the CLAIM of those who wanted it to be illegal?

 

[osmos]

Fine.

Then you will be charged back the other fifty percent. It will be legal.

You know it was wrong. They know it was wrong.

Therefore, they will make it right.

You lose.

Thanks for the response. Why do you say that though? Do you have any specific sources or precedents?

 

[cyjeff]

Thanks for the response. Why do you say that though? Do you have any specific sources or precedents?

Every single commerce website I have ever used or seen has, under "legal notices", has a section dedicated to such mistakes.

It will say that the retailer is not responsible for honest mistakes.

I recommend you check that section.

 

[Proserpina]

Zinger, we've had our issues, but that is the smartest thing I've ever read on this forum.

Really, no joke. I think it the reason why all those who post rubbish without legal content are very important to the responses.

May I use it as my signature?

You may have more luck if you used the correct spelling of his name...

..but that's just me.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Wow. Here I thought it was just a clever way to show how he was going to respond. The brain does funny things.

Zigner. May I use your wisdom for my sig?

 

[JustAPal00]

Your story doesn't have enough information for anyone to give you legal advice. Just for sh*ts and giggles, if they gave you a coupon for 5% off and made a mathmatical error giving you 55%, then yes they can go after you for the money. Charging your credit card would be their first step. If they meant to give you a 5% coupon but mistakenly gave you a 55%, then they're SOL!

 

[ariastar]

An uncle of mine managed a tiny grocery store, and gave out coupons for 50% off a total purchase of I think it was $100 intending to claim it was a mistake and was supposed to be 5%, hoping people would feel embarrassed enough to pay. There was no "seller not responsible for errors" clause. Now on the end of the purchasers, this was an "honest mistake." At what point does something cease to be an "honest mistake" and the seller stuck taking some responsibility for the error?

We don't know if the OP knew, when receiving the coupon, that it should have been 5%. The OP may have believed himself to be using a genuine 55%-off coupon. Should it always, without question, just go the direction of the seller? If a buyer makes some sort of error, the buyer's expected to pay. Why should the buyer also have to pay of the seller makes an error? If laws are based entirely on morals, then morally, even if by accident, if a seller misleads a buyer on a price, then the seller should be responsible. If I make an error and hit the gas instead of brakes, I pay, right? Because my mistake caused the damage.