MOSCOW, February 1 The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stood up for a resident of Kurgan, who, due to a malfunction in the online store, bought household appliances below their market value prices, as stated in the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases.
According to the case materials, the plaintiff bought two Bluetooth headsets and six Tefal steam generators on the website www.dns-shop.ru. The purchase cost him 26 thousand rubles (before the failure he would have had to pay almost 90 thousand rubles). However, after payment, the seller canceled the order and returned the money. The Kurgan resident was determined to get his purchase and went to court.
There, the seller insisted that the man ordered the same type of goods in order to resell them. “The plaintiff, having current experience in selling household goods, having the opportunity to check the cost of goods in other large stores, having discovered an obvious error, instead of taking good faith actions to notify the seller of such an error, took advantage of it in bad faith and throughout the day tried to order a number of goods that were subject to software failure,” the store insisted.
The plaintiff claimed that he bought steam generators to give them to his colleagues on March 8th. As a result, the dispute reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The court sided with the buyer. “A retail purchase and sale agreement is considered concluded from the moment the seller issues a cash or sales receipt or other document confirming payment for the goods to the consumer,” the court indicated, explaining that when selling goods remotely, the seller is obliged to enter into a retail purchase and sale agreement with any person expressing their intention to purchase goods under the terms of the offer.
As indicated in the definition, price fixation occurs at the moment of concluding an agreement between the buyer and the online store, which is determined by the moment the order is placed and assigned a number,
“»Change the price announced at the time of placing the order, the seller in unilaterally no longer has the right… From the moment of issuing cash receipts confirming payment for the online order, this agreement is considered concluded, and the defendant has an obligation to transfer the goods to the plaintiff. The current lack of goods from the defendant does not relieve him of this obligation,» — it is said in the definition.