Amazon fails to honour Pocket PC bargain

Earlier today we reported how Amazon.co.uk was crippled by demand for an HP iPaq model which it was selling for just £7.32.

Hundreds of shoppers logged onto the e-tail site to take advantage of the bargain and while most immediately assumed it was a pricing blunder on Amazon's part, few let that prevent them from placing an order. But whatever the reason, and whatever an individual's understanding of the situation, many received emails from Amazon.co.uk confirming their purchase and confirming the charge of £7.32. So, where do these shoppers stand?

Amazon.co.uk has issued a statement which says: "We can confirm that there was a price discrepancy on the site for HP iPAQ Pocket PCs this morning. Despite our best efforts pricing errors can occur.

"In keeping with our Conditions of use and our Pricing and Availability Policy, we will be cancelling orders made for the HP iPaq Pocket PCs at the incorrect price this morning. In our Pricing and Availability Policy, we state that where an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we contact the customer before dispatching. Accordingly, customers will be contacted and offered the opportunity either to cancel their order or to place new orders for the item at the correct price."

This isn't the first such case of deals which appear too good to be true. Below are some other examples which - Amazon would do well to note - fail to establish a clear precedent in such matters.

Family of six takes £90 holiday in Florida Last year the Dryers from Liverpool returned from a holiday in Florida - boasting of the fact that their entire trip, booked online through First Choice, had set them back the princely sum of just £90 - or £15 each - due to a web error.
Verdict: What could First Choice do? The family had already taken their holiday and the company had little choice but to honour the bargain break.

£320 digital camera, yours for £100 In January 2002 Kodak admitted that human error led to the DX3700 digital camera being advertised at £100 on the company website. The camera usually retails at £320 and customers logged on in their droves to take full advantage of the bargain.
Verdict: Having originally refused to honour the sale price Kodak issued a statement a couple of weeks later saying it was prepared to stand by the £220 discount. Happy shoppers all round.

Colour TVs for £3 - cheap at twice the price In 1999 Argos advertised television sets for £3 on its website. Understandably customers took them up on the kind offer but this one got messy.
Verdict: Argos refused to honour the sale and the case went to court with consumers fighting for their right to a bargain. In part, Argos' problem was compounded by the fact that one aggrieved customers worked for law firm Taylor Joynson Garrett, who spearheaded the legal case. While Argos triumphed in this instance the case failed to set a precedent for such disputes.