…..and wait you might. Here is my experience with Dell. Last year I ordered an Epson 2200 from them. They had a low ball price –about $100 less than other stores. There was a shortage of the Epson printers at that time. I can't remember when I ordered exactly, lets say September with a delivery date of Oct 10. I actually received the printer in April, I just checked my receipt. In the interval between placing the order and receiving the printer, Dell started to call me around January every few weeks and say they were canceling the order. In order to keep my order I had to call them and reconfirm that I wanted it. Each time they would push the order back another few weeks. I reconfirmed just for spite for a while. I just checked the box to see where the printer came from. While it had Dell's return address on the shipping label, it looked like the printer has made an intermediate stop along the way, from Epson to Oregon to Dell to me. Well, reading about the 70-200 and given my experience with Dell you would think that I would just sit on the sidelines, use my new 70-200f/4 and forgettaboutit. Well I must have ____ for brains. I ordered the lens, returned my 2 week old f/4 and now probably will not be able to shoot above 70mm for a while.
I have very low expectations that this is going to turn out happily. I smell frustration somewhere in all this. Nonetheless, I'm on board, too. I have the 75-300 IS lens which is a poor substitute, but at least I'm in business until the new lens arrives.
To tell you the truth, the last time I looked at basic contract law was when I was studying for the bar. I practice mainly in the corporate/tax area (this is different from General Business, which are the lawyers who would know). I am going to run it by them tomorrow. Initial thoughts though are that I have a contract. They ran an advertisement, I made an offer, and they accepted. And there was valid consideration. The contract is over $500 and in writing. Basically, I have an executory contract.
Most companies do have a general terms and conditions of order that change/alter/amend general UCC law. These usually appear somewhere on their website (often there is a link or acceptance button (usually the crap you skip over and just click on the "I accept" button) or within the order confirmation. If the terms are within the order confirmation, you have 10 days (or some amount of time) to reject the additional terms (although your bargaining power in most cases is nil). My order confirmation contained no additional terms. A brief search of their website produced nothing either. Furthermore, I do not think that I would be bound by terms on the website since I ordered from them via an employee/agent over the phone (their agent further confirmed that I was ordering an IS version, etc., even acknowledging the low price -- I mentioned B&H and he responded that he knew their price was $1649).
Addressing the ascertion that customers change price tags, etc.; yes, a merchant is not bound by something such as that.
I imagine what generally happens (and possibly what happened in the United case mentioned in the previous post) is that a company, Dell here, realizes their mistake and simply sends an order cancellation email or letter knowing full well they do not have the right to and that the vast majority of people will be pissed but will not pursue it further (given the cost of legal services). Put another way, it is easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.
I will proably post a followup response tomorrow as I will be better versed in the law once I run it by some of my more knowledgable colleagues.
In the meantime, I would love to find someone that saved that screen shot (I was an idiot for not archiving it).
Also, for those of you who might be worried that I will try and force their hand and screw everything up for everyone else, I will not do that. I have the same feelings. I wish people would simply quit calling Dell. Just wait and see.
I ordered on the morning of the 22nd and was given a ship date of 10/2. I am really not concerned at all. When it ships, it ships. I thought it quite considerate of the Dell salesperson to email and second (but more importantly), the email clearly states that it is the EF 70-200 MM F/2.8 L IS.
I am curious though to find out if anyone was promised a date before 10/2. All the posts I have seen list 10/2 or dates after.
Turns out United honored the $30 flights after first cancelling the reservations.
In all, 143 tickets were purchased before the fault was detected. "We say bon voyage and enjoy this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" was United's comment."
From the greatest travel site of all time, www.flyertalk.com, for those who have interest in the United snafu:
Some of the comments (sounds similar to this thread...):
"I did it too from San Francisco. 23 bucks. I now have 4 roundtrips from SFO/SJC to CDG for a total cost of about $200. I have confirmation numbers and everything. The price holds once you click charge/submit."
"I just booked it too for $21.98. Now I just have to figure out how to get to SJC from BOS... hehe... "
"Amazing, simply amazing. A tip of the hat to all of you if it works out! "
"I wish you all luck, but United is under no legal obligation to honor such an obvious mistake. Does anyone have even the least ethical concern over this? You all know the fare was in error. What do you do when you give the cashier a $20 bill and he/she mistakenly gives you change for a $50?"
"I just came from the CTO (City Ticket Office) and the charge on UA's ticket says $535 per ticket for me. They have also reserved the full amount on my charge card. Me thinks we will have a battle right now. "
"Your situation more closely parallels buy.com's recent travails: http://www.palmerdodge.com/focus/focusoutput.cfm?fileID=198
In that situation, buy.com only honored the incorrect price for the amount of the item that buy.com had in stock (some 100+ units) and cancelled the other orders (after informing consumers they could buy at the higher correct price) and eventually gave all the cancelled customers gift certificates.
As the article states, Amazon recently had similar problems early this year. Staples also had a problem this year with bad data entry. http://www.catalogagemag.com/content/Monthly/2000/2000090105.HTM "
"(WSJ 2/15/01)
United Site Quotes Super-Low Fares,
Balks at Honoring the Ticket Prices
By JANE COSTELLO
WSJ.COM
Eric Bescher almost flew to Paris for less than $30.
An elite level United Airlines frequent flier from Los Angeles, Mr. Bescher visited United's Web site on Jan. 31 to search for a low fare to Europe in March. The deal he found was a lot better than he'd bargained for -- passage to France for less than the price of a bottle of good burgundy. A technical glitch at the site listed the round-trip fare from San Jose to Paris as just $27.98. "I snapped it up right away," he says.
Mr. Bescher wasn't alone in his good fortune. United Airlines says it inadvertently sold 143 tickets to destinations such as Hong Kong at really rock bottom prices via its Web site, ual.com, during a 55-minute period on the evening of Jan 31.
United says a computer bug "zeroed out" the fare on a number of international flights so that the amounts shown reflected only a portion of the taxes and miscellaneous fees. In fact, fares were in a free-for-all: One minute a round-trip fare from San Francisco to Paris was $85.42; seconds later that same ticket sold for $24.98.
United spokesman Chris Brathwaite says the airline won't honor any tickets sold at those prices. "Anyone who thought they could fly from L.A. to Paris for $27 should have known better," Mr. Brathwaite says. He likens the situation to a bank error when the teller inadvertently hands the customer a $1,000 bill instead of $100. "It's clearly a mistake: everyone knows you don't fly first class to Paris for $29," he says. "You don't get something for nothing."
United is in the process of contacting customers to let them know what the "correct" fare is. As a consolation, United says it will waive any cancellation fees should passengers not wish to pay the difference."
Sorry for the length of this post..... !! BTW, Notice the "70-200 IS" already in my signature; Dell HAS TO HONOR it now, right??
I was told 10/1. And in the for what is worth colum - I don't care if it takes till April. I didn't plan on buying the lens before then anyway. I still get a great lens earlier than I had hoped and for $500+ less. Here is my original confirmation email:
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 5:29 PM
Subject: Dell Order Summary for order number #4772*****
> Your order with Dell Inc has been processed and will go into production
upon authorization of your method of payment. Please review your order
detail below and save this e-mail. It contains your Customer Number and
your Order Number(s), which allow you to track your order's status. If
there are any changes, please contact your sales representative below.
>
> This email includes:
>
> - ORDER STATUS
> - SHIPMENT INFORMATION
> - ORDERED COMPONENTS
>
>
> Dell Order Information
> ----------------------
>
> Order Number: 4772******
>
> Customer Number: 3488****
> Sales Point of Contact: Caguioa, Rodelio
> Email Address: [email protected]
> Phone: 800-274-0696 ext: 84520
>
> Order was placed on: 09/21/2003
> Estimated Shipping Date: 10/01/2003
> Shipped To:
> BRIAN A HANSEN
> *Sales Tax: $0.00
> Shipping and/or Handling: $0.00
> Total Order Amount: $1,169.96
>
> **Associated Order Number:
>
> *Dell Home Systems collects tax on orders to Texas, Kentucky, Idaho,
Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia.
For shipments to other states, tax relates to the third party service
contract only. The purchaser is responsible for remitting any uncollected
tax on their order directly to the local tax authorities.
>
> SHIPPING INFORMATION
<<>>>
Good luck everyone. I feel bad for the person who sold a lens already with the expectation that this lens would ship. I personally have waited to sell my first lens which is the Tamron 24-135mm. I am starting to wish I had not posted the original message - I wish everyone would just relax and go back to talking about taking pictures. Sorry to vent...
You should have kept the 4.0 cause if you ever get a 2.8 IS, which seems doubtful, you could sell either one and still make out like a bandit.
And just because they say IS in the email, thats no guarantee that they have this right now. They better clear things up or they are going to get a ton of returns. 1st person that gets the non-IS shipped is going to trigger mass cancellations.
Jay, I live in California and I know we have some consumer laws that are considerably different than most states. However, I have no idea if any of them specifically relate to this situation.
I realize vendors are protected to some degree from simple product price data entry errors, and typos by outside firms that create their ads, etc., and rightly so IMO. What I don't know is how far this protection extends. If they realize their mistake prior to selling such product then I would be more inclined to say they have an out. However, I'm unclear on their responsibility if they realize their error shortly after completing a sale, or taking an order, and then contact the customer explaining the error.
The question becomes: Since several customers have contacted Dell with concerns about the price and why they are concerned (myself included), yet they are still assured they will be getting the IS version of the lens by a Dell sales 'agent', doesn't this create a fiduciary obligation on Dell's part to provide it at the advertised price?
BTW, here's a link to the screen shot you were requesting. I also have the original .jpg version that was on DPReview. Click on the thumbnail to view the full sized image.
Advertised may have a specific legal meaning, so what I am about to say may be moot. As far as I know this wasn't actually 'advertised' in the traditional sense. No print, TV, radio, or internet. Not even a weblink.
This deal spread by word of mouth on the internet. "Call here. Ask for so and so. This is the product number." Etc etc.
Not exactly active solicitation. Mind you if the term 'advertise' has a very specific legal meaning......
The confirmation email I received said to expect shipment on, or about, Oct. 3rd.
Order was placed on: 09/23/2003
Estimated Shipping Date: 10/03/2003
I'm one of the people that sold their 70-200 f/4 to swing this deal, but only 'after' I called Dell with my concerns about the Canon part number, and was assured I would be receiving the IS lens at the advertised price. I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS version. Why would I want another one at ~$400.00 more than I paid for mine? The point is, I don't.
The sad part is, the 70-200 f/4 is really hard to find now, and it has been suggested that it might be discontinued. I had to do some real soul searching to let it go, but I had a friend that would give me what I paid for it. They would have to drop out of an ebay auction they had a bid on to do so. In other words, once I sell it to them, it's theirs. Period.
I intend to get my 70-200 IS from Dell at the advertised price. I'll just keep repeating this to myself over the next few weeks and keep poking at Dell after the dust has settled here _poke_
Originally, the lens did show up in the Digital Camera/SLR section on Dell's site at $1299.95. This was while a 10% discount was being offered on all digital cameras and accessories. This is how the first few lenses were sold, and how we all found out about it.
When I called I asked if the Canon 70-200mm L IS lens was still available at that price, I was told yes. Dell continued to take orders for the lens several days after that, based upon the original advertisement that 'was' displayed on their site.
The 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are among the lower priced items.
If Canon if offering new lower prices to it's distributors, perhaps the same will be announced by Canon USA after retailers have had time to move out old stock. Like I said, it's hard to say...
There are a lot of pessimists on this board. I say, be patient and let's see if Dell ships, instead of expecting a debacle, long wait time, or a wrong item. I sometimes wonder if Dell has people scouring the forums reading the posts of all the these naysayers and would-be-angry customers. Probably would scare them into compliance!
Isn't it dishonest to take advantage of someone's obvious mistake? How would you feel if you were the seller and made the same type of mistake? Moreover, to publicly discuss legal methods of forcing Dell to deliver an expensive product at a lost is rather shameful and selfish. Maybe ethics should be taught in public schools...
Its been a couple of years since I touched up on UCC (please excuse me non-legalese on this), but I believe there is a provision to cover situation such as this. Correct me if I am wrong, but the offer has to be "reasonable", in the first place. For example, if you saw Ferrari 250GT black/black on Ferrari.com for $1 and whipped out your CC to place the order ... Ferrari would not have to honour your order (provided the offer was places by a mistake) because it was clearly unreasonable. In this case it was common knowledge that this particular lens can not be had for less then $1599.
"If it sound too good to be true, it probably is."
However, some people should be able to pursue DELL and receive their 70-200/F2.8 "IS", provided that can show that in their belief that DELL's offer was reasonable they gave something up. For example, if a person had sold their 70-200 non-IS to raise money for DELL's offer. Everybody else hasn't really shown any consideration for DELL's offer, besides getting of their ass to get the cridit card.
?? 
