Non delivery of an in stock item after price hike. Anyone else had this kind of thing with play.com? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Non delivery of an in stock item after price hike. Anyone else had this kind of thing with play.com?

fragilegorilla Avatar
7y, 8m agoPosted 7 years, 8 months ago
A year ago I ordered a piece of tat off play.com. The usual instock, then out of stock then switched to pre-order games began. It stayed on the site as available to pre-order till around Jan 09. Then switched to awaiting stock. I waited for the cancelled your order e-mail which never arrived.

Then the exact same thing appeared on the site on a new page, DOUBLE the price, and available to pre-order, it's now in stock. They only really changed the height in the product description so it was in cm not inches.

I e-mailed them to find out why they haven't sent it as it is in stock and clearly the same item, albiet with a huge price increase, they replied by immediately cancelling my order because:

"This item was only available in limited quantities and all stock has now
been sold. As it is unlikely that we will be able to offer the item again
in the near future we have cancelled this item from your account."

Take a look:

original order (£23.94):

http://www.play.com/Gadgets/Gadgets/4-/3386320/Nintendo-Super-Mario-12-PVC-Statue-With-Mushroom/Product.html

re-listed item with price hike (£44.99):

http://www.play.com/Gadgets/Gadgets/4-/9510026/Super-Mario-Bros-30cm-Mario-Vinyl-Figure/Product.html

Tell me it's "unlikely that [we] will be able to offer the item again in the near future" from those llnks. Isn't this kind of behaviour in retail totally illegal, I think fraud is the word that describes it, play have goten really bad IMHO.
Other Links From Play.Com:
fragilegorilla Avatar
7y, 8m agoPosted 7 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(11) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Yup, although it was a book so price difference wasnt as bad. Ordered over a year ago, still shows awaiting stock
#2
Just read, they did a similar thing over some Blu ray terminator 2 film, encased in a terminator head. Seems it's now common practice.

This kind of thing really annoys me. So just for fun I posted a review on their site (copy below), they'll never put it up, but it's fun to vent my spleen. Hope an annoyed employee just lets it through to stop people being scammed by play...not that anyone would be dumb enought to pay nearly £50 for that lump of plastic. Then again, It was overpriced at £25 and I was dumb enough, lol.

[CENTER]"

Review title: FRAUD!

I dare you to put this 'review' up!

I bought the DSlight holder, same as this, not worth the £17, so this is definitely not worth £45.

As for this it isn't ever in stock. Oh, no wait, that's if you ordered/pre-ordered it for £24.99 when they listed it as: Nintendo: Super Mario 12'' PVC Statue With Mushroom

Google it and look at the cache of the page you'll see the similarity is uncanny...cos' it's the same item.

Now though, as it's a 30cm mario vinyl figure it's gone to £44.99. Oh, wait, 30cm is 12"...and isn't vinyl short for PVC (PolyVINYL Chloride) i.e. plastic and what's that?...there in Mario's hand...is it a mushroom, I think it is!

Good news everybody! According to play.com "you save £5 (-10%)" (even that's wrong, £50 - £24.99 means you pay £25 more (+100%).

Bad news play.com! about relisting the same item at a higher price and then cancelling pre-orders as your "out of stock" and won't ever "get it back in stock" again (look above it say's "in stock"), it's called fraud...it's illegal."[/CENTER]
#3
its not illegal in fact if you go into many high street retailerts they may well have a cd/dvd or whatever in the sale but they probably have the same item at full price also

the reason is gfenerally the retailer will but a huge bulk of stock with extra discounts to enable the sale to take place.....this stock is priced accordingly....when its gone its gone

they may well have already had regular priced stock in which they have paid more for which will stay at the same price even while the sale is on....


profit margins
#4
As above, where is the fraud? You might have a point if they charged you the full price after inviting you to pay the lower price.
#5
tinkerbell28
It won't get published as it's not fraud, not contract exists to sell you that item, if play have mispriced it they don't have to charge you and send it, they can cancel the order.
Although not fraud it is awful customer service, but most large companies are the same.


It's fraud by definition. Most companies get around these things by saying no contract exists until goods are despatched, I'm sure that's even a bit shakey, they used to call the kind of orders we make now a 'Gentleman's agreement' and they were tradionally honoured. Also it wasn't a mis-price as they had sold it for the price I ordered it at, it was also not in a sale.

It is fraud by definition because they are falsely claiming to be out of stock in order to avoid fulfilling orders and pre-orders made in good faith at the lower price. This is for financial gain through deception which is by definition fraud. I'm a scientist not a lawyer but if they take orders at the lower price, then at some point decide they want to charge more, so put it up as a 'new' item at the higher price. Cancelling older orders would mean if those customers still wanted to order it they pay more and so have effectively been defrauded of the difference in price.They could have increased the price on the original page, however, they would then have to honour those pre-orders, by deceptively saying it's no longer available and then making a new page for the same product they get around it.

Technically were both right, but it is absolutely terrible customer service, which I'll repay in my usual way...never order another thing from them. Their attitude is no doubt, that there are plenty more customers, which is true. My attitude is, there are plenty more retailers, which thankfully is also true.

I've got a bee in my bonnet about this for some reason, I orderd the DSlite version for cheap and it was naff, went to cancel this but just left the order after I'd noticed the re-listing just to see what they'd do. Logic being that you only know what a company is realy like when things go wrong etc. so why not give them the chance to screw up when I don't care. Just imagine what I'd be like if I gave a damn..lol.
#6
fragilegorilla
It's fraud by definition. Most companies get around these things by saying no contract exists until goods are despatched, I'm sure that's even a bit shakey, they used to call the kind of orders we make now a 'Gentleman's agreement' and they were tradionally honoured. Also it wasn't a mis-price as they had sold it for the price I ordered it at.

It is fraud by definition because they are falsely claiming to be out of stock in order to prevent them from fulfilling orders and pre-orders made in good faith at the lower price. This is for financial gain through deception which is by definition fraud. They take orders at the lower price, then at some point decide they want to charge more, so put it up as a 'new' item at the higher price. Cancelling older orders would mean if those customers still wanted to order it they pay more and so have effectively been defrauded of the difference in price.

Technically were both right, but it is absolutely terrible customer service, which I'll repay in my usual way...never order another thing from them. Their attitude is no doubt, that there are plenty of more customers, which is true. My attitude is, there are plenty of more retailers, which thankfully is also true.

I've got a bee in my bonnet on this for some reason, I orderd the DSlite version for cheap and it was naff, went to cancel this but just left the order after I'd noticed the re-listing just to see what they'd do. Logic being that you only know what a company is realy like when things go wrong etc. so why not give them the chance to screw up when I don't care. Just imagine what I'd be like if I gave a damn..lol.


I think you need to have some legal understanding before making such claims. You might not agree with it, but it's not fraud. They have not financially gained from this, they did not charge the higher amount. Please don't make false comments on contract law, it doesn't look good.
#7
pghstochaj
I think you need to have some legal understanding before making such claims. You might not agree with it, but it's not fraud. They have not financially gained from this, they did not charge the higher amount. Please don't make false comments on contract law, it doesn't look good.


+1

You will probably find it is written in their terms and conditions somewhere if you have a look

retailers are good with getout clauses these days
#8
pghstochaj
I think you need to have some legal understanding before making such claims. You might not agree with it, but it's not fraud. They have not financially gained from this, they did not charge the higher amount. Please don't make false comments on contract law, it doesn't look good.


Like I say I'm not a lawyer, they do have small print about no contract existing blah blah, but the fact remains they are trying to profit through deception. I didn't look up legal stuff but even the ever (un)reliable wikipedia has this as it's first line.

"In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. "

Which is what I and most others accept as fraud and what I believed to be true when I made the statements, someone lying and deciveing others to get what they want, usually money. So don't accuse me of making false comments, it doesn't look bad, it's just offensive.

Following from the line above, as I see it, their deception is that they state they have no stock (false), they're not getting stock (false) and they don't expect to have in in stock again (false) so they cancel it. All of their claims are demonstrably false so there is the deception . The reality is, they have stock, they could fulfil the order, but they want to cancel. They profit by this deception IF the person then orders the exact same product at the higher price. The out of stock product is then magically available. Ergo they profit by deception, the only reason they won't profit here is the fact that it's not going to be re-orderd. None of that has anything to do with 'contract law' it's just a fact, they're lying, the result of this lie would be more money IF a 'willing' customer is then forced only through their refusal to send the item they have in stock, to buy it again at the higher price.

I don't believe I'm being dragged into semantics and pendantry over law, contracts and legal definitions just over having a bit of fun at play's expense in a review that won't get published . Thank God for the cold hard logic of science.
#9
fragilegorilla
Like I say I'm not a lawyer, they do have small print about no contract existing blah blah, but the fact remains they are trying to profit through deception. I didn't look up legal stuff but even the ever (un)reliable wikipedia has this as it's first line.

"In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. "

Which is what I and most others accept as fraud and what I believed to be true when I made the statements, someone lying and deciveing others to get what they want, usually money. So don't accuse me of making false comments, it doesn't look bad, it's just offensive.

Following from the line above, as I see it, their deception is that they state they have no stock (false), they're not getting stock (false) and they don't expect to have in in stock again (false) so they cancel it. All of their claims are demonstrably false so there is the deception . The reality is, they have stock, they could fulfil the order, but they want to cancel. They profit by this deception IF the person then orders the exact same product at the higher price. The out of stock product is then magically available. Ergo they profit by deception, the only reason they won't profit here is the fact that it's not going to be re-orderd.


You don't understand, they have not financially benefited from not selling to you, their completely valid Ts&Cs will state implicitly that you were just making an offer, which they have now rejected. Unfortunately you can't put together a scenario and call it fraud; they have not forced yo to pay the higher charge. Likewise, if I went to buy an item from Tesco and at the till realised it was mispriced (without yet paying), it would be up to me to then pay (or otherwise) the higher price, it would not be fraud in this scenario either.

With all due respect, whilst what they have done is immoral, using the word fraud is just wrong. It has absolutely everything to do with contract law since this is what it is, a contract and hence controlled by...contract law.
#10
i hardly think its intentional, with the amount of items they have listed mistakes are bound to happen

if you feel so strongly about it, try taking them to court but i guarantee you will lose in this case
#11
casparwhite
i hardly think its intentional, with the amount of items they have listed mistakes are bound to happen

if you feel so strongly about it, try taking them to court but i guarantee you will lose in this case


I don't bet but this would be a bet I would happily take :)

I think the OP needs to understand that whilst it's annoying and "wrong", it's not fraud nor illegal.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!