Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PaperChase who wrote (67381)	9/8/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

I was only posting his article because of the content about the BLS statistics. Sorry for the confusion.

To: PaperChase who wrote (67381)	9/8/1999 3:25:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 132070

TVs Under $5? Forget It! Updated 8:52 AM ET September 8, 1999 LONDON (Reuters) - Catalog retailer Argos said Wednesday it would not honor orders made over its Internet trading site for television sets which were mistakenly offered for three pounds ($4.83) each. The company learnt a harsh lesson in online commerce after a computer glitch rounded up the 299.99 pound 21-inch television price to 300.00, shifted the decimal point and dropped two noughts, triggering staggering levels of orders for the bargain sets. "We have a great Internet site...it has some tremendous offers on it but clearly a TV for three pounds is not one of them," said Argos CEO Terry Duddy. The group, owned by home shopping company GUS, has refused to honor any of the orders made before the mistake was spotted and the bogus price withdrawn. "We shall be contacting each customer directly to apologize, explaining their orders cannot be accepted in this case," Duddy said. But legal experts question whether the company's stance will stand up in court as it conflicts with regulations on misleading consumer pricing. They say this case will test the regulations' applications to online trading. Argos said that because it had not confirmed that any of the orders had been accepted, no contract existed to sell the sets at the three pound price.