法律只保护两种人：强势群体和坏人

不可能要求强制交易的，我觉得这也不涉及什么诚信不诚信的问题，标价错误跟毁约是两码事

换位想下，各位影友谁网上购物的时候没个把撤单的时候？你点购买了，不想要了，如果有商家就追着你骂说你不诚信，说你违反什么合同法？你是不是很想削死他？

再多说两句，可能因为我自己也是个奸商。我真的能理解锐意这种境地，你越是服务好，顾客对你的要求越高，价格要向中关村看齐，服务要向5星宾馆看齐。有多少朋友想过服务是需要利润支撑的，一个相机赚你10块钱的js你能指望他怎么服务你，一个相机赚10元的js他不在配件上坑你他吃什么？他不给你开假票他赚什么？

宽容锐意点吧，这次的事情锐意算处理得相当好了，如果是我出了这样的事情，我真的没勇气也没能力做出这样的补偿，真不知道那些建议锐意一赔到底的朋友都是什么身价。

何必呢,玩摄影是为了心情愉快.
将心比心,如果是你标错了价,老板批评就已经够难受的了.
俺在锐意买相机的时候,因赠送的三角架不好带,就送给他们员工了.

锐意不是见钱眼开？
什么逻辑！

家乐福的标价，只是“购买邀请”invitation to treat
你从家乐福的货架上拿起一件物品，并不产生购买合同

合同直到你付款，家乐福给你打出收据才成立
在此之前你可以把商品放回货架，家乐福也不能起诉消费者违约

网上购物也是一样，放入购物车，并不等于对方一定要卖给你
也不会产生合同行为，提交订单也不会自动产生购买合同，只有订单被确认合同才真正产生

澳大利亚※※的法律解释，明确说明，标错价商家有权拒卖
retailer has the option to withdraw the item from sale.

http://www_accc_gov_au/content/index.phtml/itemId/322984

Whether or not you will be obliged to complete the transaction will depend upon the application of contract law.

An ‘invitation to treat’ is a contract law concept that means displaying an item with a marked price does not constitute a binding offer to the world at large; rather, it constitutes an 'invitation to treat', or an offer to deal with the trader concerning the item and as such the retailer has the option to withdraw the item from sale.

Whether or not a consumer can force you into completing the transaction will depend upon whether the elements of a binding contract are present:

   1. an intention on the part of both parties to create legal relations
   2. an offer must be made
   3. there must be acceptance of the offer
   4. consideration—or an exchange of something between two or more parties
   5. legal capacity—both parties must be legally capable of entering into a contract
   6. genuine consent between the parties
   7. the contract must be for a legal purpose.

A contract may be verbal or written.

The important stages of contractual negotiations for retailers inadvertently mispricing goods under contract law are the ‘offer’, ‘acceptance’ and the ‘consideration’ stages.
Offer

An ‘invitation to treat’ can be considered to be part of the initial stages of negotiation between two or more parties to a contract. An invitation to treat is part of the ‘offer’ and in many circumstances, an offer may be non-binding until the successful conclusion of a contract for sale.
Acceptance

Acceptance must be an unqualified or unconditional agreement by both parties with the offer, otherwise it is a counter offer. It must be clear and certain, although acceptance can be implied.
Consideration

This means that both parties are exchanging something of value, for another thing of value. In a retailing context, the retailer exchanges goods in return for cash or some other thing of value, and the purchaser exchanges cash or some other thing of value, for the goods. In a valid contract there is both the loss and gain of something of value for both parties.
Top
What does this mean?

If you have inadvertently mispriced a good or service, in some circumstances you may be able to withdraw the item from sale. If you experience this problem, you must carefully consider all aspects of the offer. You must consider whether withdrawing an item from sale rather than honouring the price that you have offered it for is likely to give rise to claims that you have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
Honest mistakes

If civil proceedings were instigated, the ACCC would take into account an honest mistake or reasonable reliance or assurance provided by suppliers in deciding what enforcement activity it would take against a business. However, competitors or other interested parties may be able to take action where you have misrepresented the price, albeit inadvertently.

Whether or not your business is able to withdraw the product from sale is a matter of contract law and we are not able to provide you legal advice. You must seek your own independent legal advice.

The interaction of contract law and the Trade Practices Act involves a reasonably complex set of issues. Hence, we stress that when you become aware of a mistake, you should take immediate action to rectify it—not only so that the offer of sale is withdrawn, but also to ensure that the false or misleading representation is rectified.
What should businesses remember?

You cannot mark goods at any price you like on the shelf, or in a catalogue or promotion, then tell consumers purchasing goods at the register that the goods are not available for that price. The right to withdraw an item of sale is not absolute and you should consider the facts of each matter if you receive complaints or inquiries from consumers.

You may also be party to a code of conduct, or a store policy when dealing with customers who present items at the cash register and find, for example, that the items when scanned show a higher price than the marked one.

One code of conduct relevant to this type of occurrence is ‘The Code of Practice for Computerised Checkout Systems in Supermarkets’. Some companies have a store policy that embraces similar concepts to those contained in this code.

Some provisions of the code include:

    * stores being required to ensure the price-accuracy of their checkout systems and shelf-pricing procedures and that where an error occurs, the customer being offered the item free in recognition of having brought that error to the attention of the store
    * the code applies to any bar-coded item that is scanned, even if the item is marked down for quick sale
    * the code does not cover items that are individually priced (that is, which carry a price sticker or tag on the item itself) and are not scanned

For more information on the code visit the website of the Australian Retailers Association (you will find their details in our Consumer & business directory on the left-hand side of this page).

It is in the interests of many businesses to include the risk of mispriced items in their risk management and mitigation strategies.
Top
Want more information?

There is a wealth of information for retailers in the Retail flash series published jointly by the ACCC and Australian Retailers Association (ARA) and in Advertising, selling and the Trade Practices Act: a small business overview (see Related topics below).

To contact the ARA or visit their website (where you can download the Code of practice for computerised checkout systems in supermarkets). You will find their details in our Consumer & business directory on the left-hand side of this page.

要是锐意标错了价格，本来1000的标成2000，而客户没注意下了订单，客户可不可以取消？

所以说,当朝法律的缺失,使得消费者的※※成本很高,讨论法律条文基本无用,只能看消费者真正起诉后法院拿着不合时宜的条文朝着商家酒桌贡品解释,还是朝着单薄的消费者解释而已.这也就是此案例不乐观的原因,也是这些商家可以肆无忌惮的原因.

不应该属于重大误解,因为这本身没什么误解,商家发布的价格是个错误造成的,但这是职务行为,因而也是有效行为,如果合同成立,商家是应该对此承担责任的,至于商家的损失可以向犯错误的员工追讨.而买家下单的行为更不是误解,其中有很大的贪便宜的成份,当然了也有可能是误以为降价了,但是法律中的这个重大误解一般是指受损失一方的重大误解.

更何况真的要打这个官司,要经过起诉,取证,一审,二审,还有可能到锐意的所在地法院起诉,俗话说强龙压不过地头蛇,别说可能没理,就是真有理就一定打得赢官司吗?

[蒙哥汗 编辑于 2008-11-14 22:48]

可能还是要看错误一方的履行能力，如果有能力还是应该按照明码实价的交易。看看实体店的老板不就是这样骗人的吗，先说个很便宜的价格，买的时候再说没有了换型号，或者要加价，这种事情多了。但是锐意不是有意要骗大家，能看出来他们的补救措施还是有诚意。曾经一家公司在广告中承诺了买产品“免费送货”，消费者买了，要他们送，送货的地点在几百公里外，商家说我是指市内，广告没有写“市内”这两个字，法院判了“免费送货”，这是几年前报纸上看的报道。如果锐意有履行能力就应该履行或者提出一个让消费者满意的折中方案。

首先锐意的价格表能否构成要约本身就是个问题，让我来分析一下，

《合同法》第十四条　要约是希望和他人订立合同的意思表示，该意思表示应当符合下列规定：

　　（一）内容具体确定；

　　（二）表明经受要约人承诺，要约人即受该意思表示约束。

第十五条　要约邀请是希望他人向自己发出要约的意思表示。寄送的价目表、拍卖公告、招标公告、招股说明书、商业广告等为要约邀请。

  　　商业广告的内容符合要约规定的，视为要约。

因为锐意的免责声明提前说了自己有更改价格的权力，因此可以认为锐意已经表明了自己不受该意思表示的约束，只能视为要约邀请。但锐意的声明好像不是特别明显，容易造成误解，那么我们可以主张其免责声明并未在购物时做出明显提示，不应该属于意思表示的一部份，因而要约仍然成立；或者我们可以主张这个声明是格式合同，按照法律规定应该做出有利于买方的解释，主张其声明无效，假设某个法官采纳我们的意见，那么则要约成立。

然后我们下单购买，如果之前锐意的广告视为要约，则我们的购买行为则属于承诺，如果锐意的广告不成立要约，则我们下单的行为只能视为要约。

假设是第二种情况最简单，既然我们下单是要约，那么人家锐意不承诺就行了，合同当然不成立。

现在来看第一种情况，一般认为，承诺做出了，合同就当然成立，但也有例外，首先合同法规定了几种合同无效或待定的情况，我们来看一下，首先这个合同不违反国家法律，也不侵害第三人，也没有恶意串通，因此肯定不属于当然无效，其次锐意发布价格的人，虽然发布错了，但属于职务行为，因此不属于无权代理的情况，除非他有精神病。因此也不属于效力待定的情况。那么合同能成立吗？合同法里还有一个条文，不知道有没有人注意过：

第三十三条　当事人采用信件、数据电文等形式订立合同的，可以在合同成立之前要求签订确认书。签订确认书时合同成立。

网上买东西，应该归于数据电文一类，当然要受这个法条的约束，很多人肯定要问，我从网上买东西，都是下了单就完了，没签什么确认书啊，请注意有个“可以”二字，就是说可以要求签，也可以不要求签，这个权利由谁来决定呢？法律没说，那么我们可以认为买家或者卖家都有这个权力。如果锐意以拒签确认书为由不承认这个合同的效力，我觉得是有依据的。

《合同法》的制定，是为了保护公平的市场交易的，虽然经常被人钻空子，但法律维护公平正义，保护合法的公平交易的本质没有改变，锐意这个事件，如果锐意按照合同履约，我们固然可以说它守信用，但这本身是个显失公平的交易，

第五十四条　下列合同，当事人一方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更或者撤销：

　　（一）因重大误解订立的；

　　（二）在订立合同时显失公平的。

　　  一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段或者乘人之危，使对方在违背真实意思的情况下订立的合同，受损害方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机构变更或者撤销。

　  　当事人请求变更的，人民法院或者仲裁机构不得撤销。

这样显失公平的交易，除非卖家愿意履约，否则是不应该得到法律的支持的，因为这是对社会正常经济秩序的践踏，有违法律制定的初衷。

[蒙哥汗 编辑于 2008-11-14 22:05]

查一下《合同法》第三十三条吧。

楼主的窘况值得同情，但是楼主执意要求锐意按照标错的价格成交，我是不赞成的。还是觉得锐意的做法合情合理，对于自己的过错（没有恶意的欺骗，只仅仅是笔误，就像我们日常生活中的口误一样）做出了解释，并且道了歉，还做出了赔偿。即使楼主去打官司，我看也很难赢。

是否是要约或者要约邀请,法院说了算.
从道义上,诚信是第一位的.消费者和商家本就是交易关系,谈不上饶不饶.现在之所以有些消费者低三下四地与商家搞关系,无非是因为当朝法律在保护消费者方面的缺失而已.法律健全的地区,消费者喝口饮料烫着了都能向商家维护自己的权利.
在如今的环境下,对这次案例消费者权利维护的结果还是持不乐观态度.但尽管如此,本人依然支持楼主.

赔东西了？没想到

不见钱眼开就别反悔啊,不见钱眼开就别比别的商家高价啊,不见钱眼开就把含税价都写上啊,搞那些歪主意干啥?难不是又想坑国家又想坑消费者?