Buyer scores bargain by zero missing off $1000 crystal items bought online

The $100 purchase of crystal said to be worth $1000 ended up in the Disputes Tribunal. Photo / 123RF

A zero missing from the price of crystal dining items sold online has caused a headache for the seller, while the buyer now gets a bargain, or cash as compensation.

The crystal decanters, snifters, a wine holder and a stopper, said to be worth close to $1000 were bought for $100 on Trade Me.

When the woman who bought the items contacted the seller to arrange shipping, he told her he’d made a mistake setting up the auction for the collection worth close to $1000.

He told her he had not realised there was a reserve and that he could not let the collection go for $100.

But the Disputes Tribunal didn’t buy that argument and has instructed the seller to send the goods or pay the woman $700 in damages – the estimated value of the items, less costs and shipping.

The woman lodged a claim with the tribunal which went ahead with a hearing and made an order, despite the respondent not taking part, because he did not provide a phone number, the tribunal said.

Names and identifying details of hearings in the Disputes Tribunal are confidential.

It ultimately found the contract was binding because it was formed at the point the buyer won the auction as the only bidder at the reserve price of $100.

There was no independent valuation for the goods, so the tribunal relied on the best evidence available being a statement in the seller’s email to the buyer that the collection was worth “nearly $1000″.

The items put up for auction had a reserve of $100 and a “buy now” price of $500, but the tribunal noted that a “buy now” tag might not reflect the value of goods.

The tribunal said the seller’s refusal to honour the contract, because it was a “grave error” as outlined in an email to the buyer, was not the type of mistake that could constitute a “contractual mistake” of the type which would allow the contract to be cancelled.

“In any event, it is difficult to see how he could not have realised there was a reserve when the reserve of $100 must have been entered as such by him,” the tribunal said while pointing out there was no “default” reserve of $100 on Trade Me auctions.

“It is much more likely that CH [the seller] simply regretted setting the reserve at that level when IC [the buyer] turned out to be the only bidder.”

The tribunal ordered that the contract be upheld, but if for any reason the goods were no longer available, the buyer was then entitled to $700 in damages.