The Supreme Court stood up for a Volgograd citizen who bought things on the TSUM website 846 times cheaper than real prices

The Supreme Court sided with a Volgograd resident who, due to a technical failure on the TSUM website, purchased luxury items at prices ranging from 19 to 129 rubles. The man did not receive the purchases and went to court. Courts of three instances sided with the store, but the Supreme Court reversed their decisions.

The plaintiff bought a total of 19 items of clothing through the store’s app, including jackets, sweaters, shirts, and jeans. Clothes cost 19, 26, 39 rubles each, the most expensive thing – 129 rubles. The money was debited from the account, he received confirmation from the Central Department Store by mail and phone. But the man was notified of the impossibility of delivery and the money was returned. He went to court with the requirement to provide things, referring to the consumer protection law.

A representative of the Central Department Store said that there was a technical failure on their website, due to which “the prices for the goods began to be reflected incorrectly and clearly disproportionately to the normal cost of the corresponding goods.” Due to the failure, the man ordered goods 846 times cheaper than their actual price. The store agreed to give him the ordered items, subject to additional payment up to the full cost.

The Supreme Court did not agree with the defendant’s position. The court explained that the offer to sell clothes is a public offer and that after payment, the store is obliged to transfer the goods to the buyer. The Collegium of the Supreme Court sent the case for review to the court of first instance.

“Price fixing occurs at the time of the conclusion of the contract between the buyer and the online store, which is determined by the moment the order is placed with the assignment of a number to it, which allows the consumer to receive information about the concluded retail sale contract and its conditions. To change the price announced at the time of placing the order, the seller is not entitled unilaterally, ”the court ruling says (.pdf).

Laura Keffer