By the way, before you ask I don't work for Kodak or anything.

Just been informed of this by a friend.

http://www.kodak.com/GB/en/corp/store/catalog/Product.jhtml?PRODID=20869&CATID=7354

This is a £300 3.1MP camera on Kodak's official online shop together with accessories that cost £130 on their shop.

All together they are somehow selling for £100 on the very same shop! It is perhaps a mistake and I suspect I'll get a call saying the real price is £400, but you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket. Too good an offer to miss out on IMHO, although when they come to work on Monday morning with 10,000 orders for a camera they might suspect something.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Answers

Absoulte Pargain :)

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

On the subject of cameras, I bought myself a Kodak digital camera at the end of last year. The one with the docking port thingy - it`s excellent, just about cyberplank-proof! No kidding, even I got the hang of it quickly! (:o)

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

OK - I have ordered one. Lets see if it arrives before Kodak goes bust :/

Cool tip Paul btw :)

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2002

Nice one, order verified.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I've just ordered one now (Monday 10am UK) and it's still quoted as in stock.

Thanks for that Paul!

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Just ordered another two for family. Probably won't work, but if it does, what a fabulous deal!

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Looks like its all over now - the price is still saying £100 on the offer but when you try to order it shows £329. Buggar!

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

They don't have to honour it - it's the Internet equivalent of shops mislabelling items - but often do as a gesture of good will.

I know this from ordering The Insider DVD from Amazon.com for the grand price of nothing at all. Price listed (for about two hours) was $0.00, I only had to pay the postage.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

They've now corrected the offer price too. Still, good spot Paul. I ordered one too - let's see if they honour it.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I thought retailers were obliged to sell at the price advertised? Whether or not it's a mistake is neither here or there.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

It's classed an "invitation to treat", apparently, and as such not legally binding, though I must add the vaguely dubious acronym IANAL.

Yep I ordered one too, though it seems all you get is a phone call offering you 10% off the full price.

Feck that for a game of marbles.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I've got a confirmation email as well, does that count as a contract?

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

If we all stick together (but not tell them we are in contact) and start mentioning Watchdog & the papers etc, we may just get them shitting themselves enough to cough up at £100.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I've got the confirmation as well. Lets see what happens.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

this is being debated in the following newsgroup:

alt.consumers.uk-discounts.and.bargains

also, see this link:

http://www.theinquirer.net/07010209.htm

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I assume you were all aware that the lens for that Kodak digital camera costs £250 - they come without the lens.

$-{I

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

ho ho - tho I must admit I still checked :p

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I found it on here:

http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/forums/default.asp?Forum=223

There are a few threads, some of them suggesting mass Watchdog email to get a response.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

KODAKS OFFICIAL STATEMENT :

On 31st December 2001 Kodak advertised a DX3700 digital camera together with a 32mb memory card plus inkjet paper on the shop@kodak website. The price for this collection of products was shown as £100 which was incorrect. The correct price of £329 has now been posted on the website.

Kodak regrets any inconvenience and disappointment caused to customers.

Although Kodak will not sell the above product at the incorrect price, it will offer any affected customers a discount on their next order from the Shop@kodak website by the end of January 2002.

Kodak does reserve the right to decline to accept any customer's offer to purchase, prior to payment.

I still think they will get mass Watchdog emails if they don't go through. If they get a bad name in the mass market they'll have to honour the deal or lose business in the mainstream

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

So there really is no such thing as a free lunch. :-{E}

There's no indication in the ad that the lens isn't included. All the camera ads I've ever seen would advertise it as a 'camera body' if the lens wasn't included, and if it wasn't a try on, I'd expect them to point this out rather than assume we're all camera anoraks.

I'd be squealing like a stuck pig if I'd been taken in, and the least I'd expect would be an opportunity to cancel. Caveat emptor ? Bollox. The sneaky bastards deserve all the bad publicity they can have piled on them for pulling a stunt like that.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

They've added insult to injury with that 'discount off your next purchase' crap.

'We've taken the piss out of you lot once so we're going to keep our claws in you so we can have another go.'

I'd be telling them what they can do with that unbelievably generous offer.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

What looks to be a canny digital camera site as highlighted in last weekend's Sunday Times. Checked out the site. Very tempting.

Sunday Times "Doors" section:

www.internetcamerasdirect.co.uk Although prices online rose by 5.3% last year, double the annual rate of high-street inflation, for certain products the web still represents a healthy saving — whether the sales are on or not. Cameras are a good example. Competition between e-tailers is fierce, and it is not uncommon to find prices changing on a daily basis. This is great news for the consumer, but it pays to shop around: try a robot shopper such as www.easyvalue.com to compare deals. ICD’s prices are consistently low, and the site’s clear design makes searching for a suitable model easy. The highly desirable Fuji FinePix 4800 digital camera costs only £398, a saving of £151.99 on the high-street price. Free next-day delivery.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Might not be all bad news - I checked around for reviews of the Kodak one and a couple of people complained about the charger being crap. they reckoned you could take one photo and then the thing shut down again. Still ordered one mind!

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Here's the e-mail being sent out tonight:

Dear Sir or madam,

Recently, you submitted an order for our collection of DX3700 Digital Camera plus memory card and inkjet paper. The price stated in that order is £100.

We regret to inform you that, unfortunately, the price as stated on the Shop@Kodak website on December 31, 2001 was incorrect. It should have been £329. We rectified this on our official site within 24 hours but we understand that for a short period thereafter some people have been able to continue to access the page by quoting a specific url.

All orders placed from our website legally constitute offers to purchase from us, just like taking goods to the till in a retail store. As such, we are entitled to accept or reject offers from customers.

In this instance, notwithstanding you having received a confirmation of receipt of your order, we must decline to accept your offer to purchase the DX3700 Digital Camera package at the incorrect price of £100,and we have ceased any further processing of your order. We naturally will not now be deducting that sum in respect of the DX3700 product collection from your credit card, since we are unable to deliver the product to you in these circumstances.

This does not affect any other goods ordered by you stating the correct price placed at the same time as the order for the DX3700 product collection.

We do apologise for any inconvenience to you arising from this error and any disappointment caused. As a goodwill gesture therefore, we are happy to offer you a discount of 10% off your next order from the Shop@Kodak site, placed before January 31 2002. To take advantage of this offer , please call us at 0870 2430270.

We look forward to your continued shopping at Kodak.com.

If you require further information please call us on 0870 2416639.

Kind Regards,

Shop@Kodak

I believe Clarky has a word to describe these people...

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

Not surprising is it? They do include in their T's and C's :

"All the products on Kodak's web-site are subject to availability and we must therefore reserve the right in exceptional circumstances: to limit quantities of products we supply; to alter any of the terms and conditions on which we do business and on which we supply products to you, including the prices......"

They are perfectly within their rights. However, I have bought a book from Amazon at £0.00 when they mis-priced it! They honoured the order but I guess the amount they were losing was negligible for the good will. Kodak losing > £200 per sale is very different.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

The thing is that the receipt seems to contradict that: it refers itself as both a contract and a warranty.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

I 'won' an auction on the American site 'uBid' (always advertised with hotmail), I was to get a $h!t hot, Sony VAIO laptop for about 250 quid, the b@r$tew@rds reneged as my credit card had not been issued in the U.S.!

Yet they still advertise, worldwide obviously, through hotmail :-(

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2002

The Sun today (Tues):

AN INTERNET advertising bungle could land film giant Kodak with a £2.3million loss.

A £329 digital camera was mistakenly advertised on the firm’s web site for ... only £100.

More than 10,000 customers raced to order as the wrong price stayed in place through the New Year holiday.

Word of the incredible deal had spread around the country before Kodak staff returned to work yesterday and discovered the blunder.

Last night Kodak was consulting its lawyers. And staff were attempting to contact everyone who placed an order for the DX3700 camera to tell them it was a mistake.

The company said it would give a 10 per cent discount on the camera as a “goodwill gesture.”

But angry customers are threatening a legal battle if Kodak fails to honour the cut-price offer.

Jacqui Swift, 29, from London, said: “I placed an order and I am very annoyed at Kodak. They cannot argue it is not their fault.”

Items in High Street shops must be sold for the advertised price. But a test case has yet to establish whether this applies to the internet.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

...facts of the story up to the usual Sun standard.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

What's the number for Watchdog?

Anne Robinson - that's who we need, dunno who's taken her place on Watchdog but they won't be the same Rottweiler-type, I'm sure. Where are you when we need you Anne? (And she was right about the Welsh too......!!!)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Nick - you can contact them via:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/

...and Anne's replacement is "No-nonsense" Nicky Campbell.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Ta Benton! Right .... here's the plan ......

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

The camera has a built in lens - its a standard digital camera. It hasn't even got an optical zoom.

Its being advertised elsewhere for £260 ish so they won't lose £200/ camera - £100 is probably about right as a cost price. Check www.kelkoo.co.uk for price comparions.

That internetcamersdirect site mentioned has also seemed expensive to me when I've looked.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Well if The S** is to be believed and there were 10,000 orders then that is a million quid Kodak would lose. Probably worth fighting for. Sorry but unless they actually took your money then I can't see them honouring the price.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I don't expect to get anything out of this but it's fun watching.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Interesting - tried to email Kodak, just to stake my claim by rejecting their excuses, so went right through their website looking for an email address. Nuffin. On their 'Contact Us' bit they have phone numbers and an address, but no email. Odd, for a company who are trying to sell online. Perhaps they've taken the email address off the site due to this problem?

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I hope the Kodak employee responsible for this had a bliddy good Christmas, cos his new year hasn't started very well. Heh heh heh. :- {E}

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Items in High Street shops must be sold for the advertised price.

Bollox!

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

You're right Shagspeare. Bliddy SUN talking out their arses again....

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Well, certainly, not shining.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Didn't Hoover get caught out over offering their free hols with every washing machine purchased? The premise being, you made an offer tp purchase at an advertised price, agreed to pay that price and now they are reneging on the deal. I call that breach of contract. Just 'cos they've issued a self-important sounding letter means SFA. Take 'em on! Your home, livelihood and good name is a small price to pay for our entertainment ;-))

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

personal ethics anyone?

everybody who went to that site and ordered did so knowing the kodak had mistakingly priced the product.

anybody trying to push this issue to take advantage of the situation (watchdog etc) is a dishonest scumbag IMHO.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Sorry, but IMO the way corporations constantly screw over consumers with overly inflated prices, I don't blame folks for trying to take advantage when they can.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

....c'mon gb, call a spade a spade, and stop beating around the bush!!

Ding, ding......seconds out.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Bookmakers have a clause in their terms saying if odds offered and taken which are clearly wrong in retrospect then the bet will be settled at the correct odds.

So if someone sees that Red Rum is advertised at 100-1 and phones up and has their bet accepted by a daft operator, or does it through the net, and all the time the odds were really 10-1 then the bet, even though it was accepted at 100-1, becomes a 10-1 bet.

Rich bookies etc.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

What price the double with Shergar?

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

George Best - you want to be fucking careful what you call people on here.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

nick: is that a question?

if so you should have said "do you want.....etc..."

inevitably the answer is no, i'll continue to exercise my right of free speech on issues that grab my fancy as is the purpose of this board.

furthermore, the title of this thread had the word "steal" in it. my point if not clearly stated, is that anybody who is willing to use a quirk of the law to essentially steal something is a scumbag and i'll stand by that judgement unless some philosopher can convince me otherwise.

stealing is an interesting thing, i suppose some may consider kodak as a faceless evil entity, while some may consider the poor bastard who's just had his bosses tear him a new arsehole as a result of a silly mistake.

politics eh?

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I don't care if it makes me a dishonest scumbag.

To be honest, I at first thought it was just an end of line offer that had been a little bit low, but after ordering it I realised that the camera was on the same site for more money.

Still, if you went in a shop to buy a fridge that was advertised on the telly for £50, only to be told that you can't have it when you go to buy it as it actually costs £400 you'd be a bit annoyed.

I don't care about someone's unfortunate mistake - if Marcelino got sent off for kicking the ref in the cup final against Man Utd and lost us the game, he would feel grief for it probably. Why shouldn't this person?

I'm a dishonest scumbag, along with the other 10,000 customers.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

paul

i'd make a distinction between trying to buy a product at an advertised low price -ok

versus trying to invoke some sort of (legal / PR) threat to uphold the deal when a mistake was clearly made - scumbag behavoir.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Try this people:

you walk into a store, you see a product that usually retails for $1,000 labelled for sale at $100.

do you try to buy it?

does your decision change if:

1) you've always wanted one (the product)

2) you want it as a gift for your niece who's got cancer

3) you want it because you know a bloke down the pub who'll give you $500 cash for it.

does your decision change if:

1) the store is a branch of nasty inc. a global chain retailer staffed by bored 16 year old shop girls.

2) mr. nobody from down the street's corner shop (you grew up with his son and had your inaguaral shag with his daughter 20 years ago)

the shop bloke recognises the error when you try to pay for the product. do you:

1) act surprised and laugh about it before leaving

2) threaten to sue him until he's dead.

3) threaten to express your outrage by writing to the local paper

my point here is that we make choices in terms of our perception of ethical behavior, however deep down we'd converge and agree on what constitutes good & bad ethics. admit it!

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I wouldn't take them to court to be honest, too much hassle and they are likely to have some loophole.

However, if there are 10,000 people all thinking they have a chance of getting the stuff out of a goodwill gesture, then a collective voice will be pretty loud, especially to Kodak's reputation.

£1m to keep a huge company like Kodak's reputation intact is nowt really.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

I generally agree gb, but the fact is that Kodak are a huge multinational who along with the other big camera / film firms have set film prices high to maximise their profits.

It's hardly going to make them bankrupt as the same camera is available for £100 less on many other online shops which just goes to show how inflated their profit margins are for this shop - selling at recommended prices with reduced overheads because of the online- ness. Making more money out of the consumer, who have absolutely no blame in this matter.

Who can honestly say all of their software is legit?

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

paul:

yes they try to set prices to maximise profits, that's what all businesses must do. there's no obligation to actually buy the stuff if you consider it too expensive.

what does a huge multi national represent:

1)a bunch of overpaid fat execs 2)thousands of people who work there in order to feed their families 3)the ordinary investors who sink savings and retirement money into the company 4) all of the above.

the notion of "stealing" from people or entities to the extent that they can afford it is interesting.

suppose that i know you've gone on holiday and have not set your burglar alarm. i can break in steal the china, silver, dvd and the telly (its probably insured) but leave any unique family heirlooms and my mate clarky can't shit in your bed.

fair enough, i guess.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Er...what....how the hell did I get sucked into this little p***ing match?

I hesitate to get directly involved. However, this is indeed an issue of one's personal values, and as such it is just that "personal", thereby highly sensitive, and imo not really something that should be criticised on a footy fan bbs.

My old sparring partner, gb, obviously feels very strongly about this particular issue, but I personally feel it is way too sensitive an issue with which to openly criticise people on here - indeed this would be an incredibly sensitive issue under any circumstances.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Not a fair analogy, imo. Corporations only have ethics where it makes them the biggest profits and lines the pockets of their execs while the average punter working for them only makes enough to exist. The corporate fat cats think nothing of laying off/cutting the wages or benefits of the punters when profits have dipped to where it might affect their(execs) bonuses. As has been pointed out a million pounds will hardly dent a company as big as Kodak, whereas the goodwill of making good on their mistake potentially could make up for it by leaving a positive impression on people.

Honestly, I personally probably wouldn't be bothered about trying to go after them for the discount price (if it looks too good to be true, etc), but if a group of people pursued some kind of class action thing I wouldn't remove myself from the class either. I certainly wouldn't condemn them for trying to make a statement. Power to the people, etc etc. ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

Actually, the people who advertised these on e-bay hoping to make a quick profit (in their instance "scumbag" is quite apt) will be right up Sh!t Creek, without the appropriate implement, if the auction's closed.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

NUFC print their season ticket forms for next season and mistakingly offer season tickets for the Leazes End at £4.30 instead of £430. Problem due to typo at printer not noticed by club before sending out forms.

Everyone renews their season ticket in Leazes End and demands that they get the £4.30 price as that is what it said on the form. 10,000 fans are ecstatic. Costs the club a mere 10,000*£400 = £4m not that much to a multi million pound corporation who's revenue seems to go to its fat cat directors in the way of share dividends. Fans in said area are ecstatic.

No one loses out ....

Fat cat directors still declare a 6p per share dividend, as is their right (seemingly). Fans in Leazes end are happy as they ar egetting to see team for bugger all. No one is mssing out. Well someone is. Bobby Robson is suddenly £4m short in his transfer funds, but hey he's done well on a atight budget. OR, training acdemy doesn't get built, again, but hey again it how long has that been promised.

If it happened to me would I take the club to court to demand my £4 season ticket as per advertisement ?

There seems to be some grey area around the ethics because Kodak are big and it serves them right. Would it be more or less right in my version for a £60m turnover company ? What about the corner store advertising a 2 stone bag of potatoes for £1 instead of £10.

You either have morals or you don't is what GB is trying to say. You either feel okay about benfiting from someone's mistake or you don't.

I've read that the problem actually came from a junior person in their marketing department, who has been sacked for the mistake, as has their manager but not the director responsible. Stinks eh. But never mind those dismissed people may get a job somewhere else, someday, but you'll have won £200 off Kodak to help you foget about that. Sleep well.

I made that last bit up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true :0)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

A CONTRACT needs OFFER and ACCEPTANCE. An advertised price (in an advert, in a shop window etc) is not classed as an offer (even though marked "special offer" etc) but as an INVITATION TO TREAT. It is the buyer who makes the offer when he sends in his cheque or takes the goods up to the till to pay. The owner of the goods can refuse this offer as he sees fit and if the marked price is in error he is perfectly entitled to refuse to sell at the price.

So my understanding is that if you see a false price you are entitled to offer to pay that price but the vendor is not obliged to accept your offer.

She offered her honour
He honoured her offer
And all night long it was honour and offer

(Old Schoolboy joke)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

jonno, good explanation.

But, the question is has my 'offer' to buy been 'accepted' by Kodak. The e-mail I received when I sent my credit card details implies that it is a receipt and also refers to itself as a contract. Although no money was apparently taken from my credit card account, it would appear that Kodak felt we had entered into a contract.

However, I take the point re. the 'greediness' of trying to get somethiong for nothing - or at a greatly reduced price.

It would also appear that Kodak's opinion can also be used to protect consumers - when it comes to errors the boot can also be on the other foot.

If a customer orders 111 cameras through a mistype when he/she actually meant to buy 1, would you expect the contract to be enforced? The customer is protected in law by claiming it was a genuine error - if this can be demonstrated then the contract is void. This same principle also applies to the vendor - as in this instance with Kodak.

I rest me case m'lud (though I am not quite sure what my case is)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

With a bit more explanation than name-calling, I can now see the point being made about greediness. As well as better understanding the legalities of it all. Though I still don't see it as a pure morals vs no-morals thing as, to me, it really depends on the situation. But that's just the way I see it, colored by my own experiences.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2002

The point is, according to a well imformed source these cameras cost Kodak just over £96. So they would make a PROFIT on them still.

This is a profit that they wouldn't normally make - I wouldn't have bought it for £329, but £100 seemed a pretty good bargain to me - maybe I was naive if I thought it was a genuine offer but there you go.

However, they are such a large company that what would cost them £1m at the most to honour the deal (that's unless they make profit) that no workers would be laid off.

To be quite honest, they deserve all they get. After they realised the error, they sent out email messages stating a NEW TERM OF SALE which wasn't on the original set of rules.

Desperation if you ask me, making up a new term to try and create a loophole.

The fact that they have lied to everyone who ordered it in their subsequent email is enough for me to go as far as I can to get the deal. Contradicting terms and conditions don't help their case anyway.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002

Chevy your case is flawed.

If a customer did order 111 cameras by accident, then by law they have 7 days to return them as long as they are unopened and in original condition.

If Kodak mis-prices something and the customer gets a receipt for the goods, this is now legally binding the product with the customer – the email says that (even if it does contradict itself further down the message).

I found the offer on a “bargain buckets” forum on a DVD website. Someone pointed out that it was cheap and I thought it was an offer worth taking up. Where have I gone wrong there? It is Kodak who have made the error therefore they should pay for it. The greediness part only comes down to Kodak IMHO. If it is the case that they would still make a profit on the deal, but can’t drop below a certain profit margin, then I’m afraid they are the greedy ones. They would then get repeat sales of memory cards, paper, batteries etc from people who got the camera.

There is only one loser in this case, and it’s up to Kodak how much of a loser they will be.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002

gb, I disagree completely with your analogy of breaking into someone's house and stealing all their gear.

Kodak losing £1m is like me giving someone a biscuit and a cup of tea for free. To compare it with me losing most of my expensive belongings is suggesting that Kodak would take years to recover the loss of money.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002

Can I just urge anyone interested in this to read the following:

http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/news/feature.asp?Index=5265

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002

See http://www.richardruane.co.uk/ for some bloke compiling a register of disgruntled kodak customers.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2002