Best Buy’s Black Friday Cancellations Were “Bait-and-Switch Breach Of Contracts”

Written by Mark Rasch
January 4th, 2012

Attorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today serves as Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting at CSC in Virginia.

Twas the night before Christmas, and up in the sky, was a jolly old Santa, sans gifts from Best Buy. Consumers who had bought particularly popular items on the Best Buy Web site on Black Friday expecting a visit from Santa instead received a virtual lump of coal from the retailer in the form of an E-mail informing them that no gift was coming.

In reality, there was no cancellation of an order. Let’s call it what it really is: a bait-and-switch coupled with a breach of contract (that is, assuming I am not representing Best Buy). The Best Buy contract was—by the terms of the Web site—formed under the laws of Minnesota (Best Buy’s headquarters), which follow the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 for the sale of goods. UCC 2-204 says that if there is an offer (PlayStation for $150!), an acceptance (click here!) and consideration (here’s my credit card), then voila! A contract is formed.

Apparently, the Minnesota-based retailer did not have enough of the items sold in stock at the prices quoted and, therefore, told consumers who purchased high-demand items like the Sony PlayStation 3, the Fujifilm AX-350 camera and assorted laptops that, “due to overwhelming demand of hot product offerings on during the November and December time period, we have encountered a situation that has affected redemption of some of our customers’ online orders. We are very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused and we have notified the affected customers.” What Best Buy really meant was, “hey guys, we can’t make a profit selling these items at the price we quoted, and we don’t have enough of them in stock at that price, so _!&* you, and thank you for being a loyal customer.”

Much of the debate has focused on the untimeliness of the retailer’s notification of the “cancellation” of the offer. With only a few days (or hours) before Christmas, customers who received the notifications from the retailer were left in the lurch. Those consumers may have either had to buy the items for a higher price elsewhere, find a substitute item, not buy a gift or have the gift sent to be received after the holidays.

Let’s get back to that contract. The Best Buy contract is formed even if it is formed by an “electronic agent” of one of the parties. Electronic contracts are contracts. As far as I can tell from the Best Buy Web site, nothing gave the retailer the unilateral “right” to “cancel” the contract. Rather, Best Buy was in breach of the contract for sale and was, therefore, liable for appropriate damages—which could be the cost of acquiring the product elsewhere, additional shipping charges to get the product there on time, gas and other costs associated with finding the product, not to mention the cost of little Cindy Lou Who’s tears when the AX-350 camera could not be found elsewhere.

UCC 2-301 is pretty clear.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.