undefined | Better HN

0 pointsarcticbull3y ago0 comments

Ok say you go into an antique store. You see a vase you like. You ask the shopkeeper "hey how much for that vase?" and they say "it's a firm $50,000."

You have not paid yet.

The seller goes back and realizes that the sticker price was wrong, or that it was the owner's special vase, or that they don't actually really want to sell it.

Can you sue at this point? I'd wager not.

There are certain jurisdictions where public advertisement of prices must be honored, assuming stock and conditions are met - but this is not one of those cases. Even airlines are no longer actually required to honor mistake fares after they collect money from the passenger in spite of 14 CFR 399.88(a) [1]

Asking how much something costs and getting a quote doesn't entitle you then to make that purchase unilaterally, even if you get a counterproposal. Otherwise any time a website bugs out and displays an incorrect price you could just sue them lol.

At no point did Jump obtain a binding option to purchase. Generally to force the seller's hand, they must have already accepted the money or signed something indicating that they will sell.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/399.88

0 comments

NovemberWhiskey3y ago

You're mixing a whole lot of things together here; none of which actually relate to this case.

e.g. sticker prices are generally not offers; they're usually construed as "invitations to treat"; in cases involving sale of goods by merchants, the Uniform Commercial Code requires contracts for sales over $500 to be written; you've added a complex agency problem where an employee may be exceeding their delegated authority to sell goods on behalf of the employer; you've introduced an element of unilateral mistake where the selling party may be able to rescind the contract if the buyer had some reason to know the price was wrong

Let's take all those out of the equation.

If you're a salesperson in a shop, and I ask "how much for that vase?", and you say "$100", and I say "I'll buy that vase for $100." then that looks like a contract. It's the acceptance that creates the contract; not payment.

N.B. Cancelation of a mistake fare has nothing to do with a post-sale price increase; because a contract that involves a mistake is rescinded, meaning that it is no longer recognized as binding - the airlines are not asking people to pay more in the context of an existing contract. The doctrine of mistake doesn't apply to the case where you intended to sell for a particular price then realized it was a bad deal for you.

arcticbullOP3y ago

> If you're a salesperson in a shop, and I ask "how much for that vase?", and you say "$100", and I say "I'll buy that vase for $100." then that looks like a contract. It's the acceptance that creates the contract; not payment.

Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance?

I'm pretty sure if someone says "how much is the vase?" and you respond "$100," they say "I'll take it" and you say, "well, that's what it's worth but I'm not actually ready to part with it..." there's no binding contract to sell. But I'm not a lawyer, and I'm looking forward to a resolution here.

> N.B. Cancelation of a mistake fare has nothing to do with a post-sale price increase; because a contract that involves a mistake is rescinded, meaning that it is no longer recognized as binding - the airlines are not asking people to pay more in the context of an existing contract. The doctrine of mistake doesn't apply to the case where you intended to sell for a particular price then realized it was a bad deal for you.

This is actually incorrect. The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares.

  ... if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.” [1]

  A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above.  The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

However, they stopped holding airlines to that after a few folks took advantage.

[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP...

NovemberWhiskey3y ago

>The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares.

No; it doesn't state that at all - it states that it's an unfair or deceptive practice to increase a price for travel involved scheduled air travel after purchase. Airlines are, as a matter of contract law, able to rescind contracts made under mistake. Section 399.88 was originally interpreted by the DOT as creating strict liability for airlines if they refused to honor mistake fares, but that's different from there being a breach of contract. Breach of contract creates a remedy for the consumer; unfair or deceptive trading practices give rise to civil and administrate penalties by the DOT.

The fact of the matter is that the confrontation with their regulator and the civil penalties involved are in the "greater of two evils" category for the airlines, so there's commercially speaking no way this would ever come to court.

>Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance?

This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsarcticbull3y ago0 comments

Ok say you go into an antique store. You see a vase you like. You ask the shopkeeper "hey how much for that vase?" and they say "it's a firm $50,000."

You have not paid yet.

The seller goes back and realizes that the sticker price was wrong, or that it was the owner's special vase, or that they don't actually really want to sell it.

Can you sue at this point? I'd wager not.

At no point did Jump obtain a binding option to purchase. Generally to force the seller's hand, they must have already accepted the money or signed something indicating that they will sell.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/399.88

0 comments

NovemberWhiskey3y ago

You're mixing a whole lot of things together here; none of which actually relate to this case.

Let's take all those out of the equation.

arcticbullOP3y ago

Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance?

This is actually incorrect. The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares.

  ... if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.” [1]

  A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above.  The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

However, they stopped holding airlines to that after a few folks took advantage.

[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP...

NovemberWhiskey3y ago

>The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares.

>Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance?

This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse