Sorry if this is in the wrong place, please move it mods if that is the case.
Just thought for anyone that missed this story it might make for interesting reading.
http://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article.aspx?id=7082&h=Jeweller-to-sell-%2434k-ring-for-%241%2C100-after-error
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58056cf8e4b058596cba08a5
Reading the court transcript and the only thing I can see the jeweler did wrong was attempt to save face and instead of straight up admitting it was a pricing error they chose to claim it was no longer available. Not that this was relevant to the court but it may have annoyed the buyer that they weren't initially upfront and driven him to take up legal action. But I personally think the buyer was well aware this was a pricing error, surely a mathematician wouldn't make this type of purchase without comparison pricing. Hopefully what comes around goes around as far as I'm concerned as I find the buyer quite unethical.
I should point out that this is Australia consumer law.
Just thought for anyone that missed this story it might make for interesting reading.
A tribunal has ruled that a jewellery retailer must provide a customer with a two-carat diamond ring valued at $34,000 for $1,100 after it was incorrectly listed and ordered online.
http://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article.aspx?id=7082&h=Jeweller-to-sell-%2434k-ring-for-%241%2C100-after-error
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58056cf8e4b058596cba08a5
Reading the court transcript and the only thing I can see the jeweler did wrong was attempt to save face and instead of straight up admitting it was a pricing error they chose to claim it was no longer available. Not that this was relevant to the court but it may have annoyed the buyer that they weren't initially upfront and driven him to take up legal action. But I personally think the buyer was well aware this was a pricing error, surely a mathematician wouldn't make this type of purchase without comparison pricing. Hopefully what comes around goes around as far as I'm concerned as I find the buyer quite unethical.
I should point out that this is Australia consumer law.