The case is reminiscent of a similar error by Argos in 1999. In
that case, televisions were offered on argos.co.uk for the sum of
£2.99. The price should have been £299. The company refused to
honour the orders placed and legal action was threatened – although
it did not materialise.
The Kodak case differs from the Argos case in one significant
respect. In the Argos case, the operation of the web site left it
unclear as to whether or not a contract had been formed between the
customer and the company. In the Kodak case, according to reports,
the customers received confirmation of their orders and nothing on
the web site would indicate that the contract had not been formed
at this stage. However, Kodak denies that any contract was formed
and has apologised to customers for "any inconvenience and
disappointment caused".
When an item is offered for sale on a web site at a certain
price, there is general consensus that it has the same effect in UK
law as an item in a shop window being offered at a certain price.
This is known as an "invitation to treat." At this stage, the item
is not being "offered" to the customer. Rather, the customer is
expected to make an offer at the check-out, which the shop will
usually accept. If a price is incorrect, the shop can legally
reject the customer's offer (although, if a shop does this too
often, it may run into problems with Trading Standards).
In the Argos case, the £2.99 price tag on the televisions was
probably an invitation to treat. Although the web site sales
process was automated, the site did not "confirm" the customer's
order. In the Kodak case, the order was confirmed. This
confirmation is likely to be deemed "acceptance" in the legal
sense, i.e. the point when the contract was formed, in the absence
of anything to the contrary in the terms and conditions of the
site. Accordingly, Kodak's case appears to be weak.
