A ridiculous experience from Leica official online store

[bigbeeb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Al Brown said:

I have ordered form the very same Leica stores in Vienna (they are next door to each other) - both second hand and new (the latter is being discussed here) - with 100% success and with the full dose of Austrian pedantness but my order never surpassed 10K euros. The money was wired via EU SEPA bank transfer without any problems, nor were there issues with the store manager(s). I am stoked you did not ask WHY EXACTLY they refunded you. There are really only two options - money laundering laws or the items were actually not in stock but the site said they were.
However, I check their online store regularly for the black paint M10R and I have yet to see it coming back in stock to be available online, as they just get very few copies every fortnight or so and they are all reserved way ahead (we are in contact often, that is how I know this information). The only time this Leica model was available online was for preorders. Here is a screenshot of how the M10R black paint availability has looked for quite a while now, more than a month.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Dear friend, I also often check the popular products coming back in stock to be available online. So I think you know it's hard to order. 

Although customer can leave their email to get notification when the popular products back-in-stock. I don't get the email of Noct 50mm 1.2 back-in-stock on 06-Aug-2021. I just check the webpage and saw it back-in-stock. But I got the email of M10r black paint back-in-stock.

So I think their sytem don't send the notification to all of customer who leave their email.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[willeica]

This may not be about money laundering. I am sure that if the OP asks the people there, they will confirm that. I have always found them very easy to deal with, both for auctions and for direct purchases. I am usually buying vintage items rather than new ones, of course.  

A shop window display, a catalogue or a website is an 'invitation to treat' under most consumer and sale of goods laws. A contract generally only exists when 'consideration' passes between the parties. Again, in most jurisdictions sellers are not obliged to sell to any particular party, even when payment has been offered. In a case where a sale has been refused there is an obvious case for a full refund of any payments already sent. Depending on laws and banking/credit card rules there may also be a case for the refund of additional charges incurred.

I don't know what is behind this refusal to sell, but I would understand it if Leica* was concerned about considerable reseller activity in markets where there is a restricted supply of newly introduced high value Leica items. Typically, such markets would be ones where there are a lot of high net worth customers pursuing items that are in short supply. 

There are other possible considerations founded in competition law, WTO rules or tax laws, but I'm not sure that they would apply in this case. 

I am not saying that the OP may be engaging in reseller activities, but he/she may need to convince the Leica Shop in Vienna that their intentions are that of a consumer.

William 

* The Store in Vienna is, of course, owned by the folks in Wetzlar

 

[pedaes]

24 minutes ago, willeica said:

 or a website is an 'invitation to treat'

If post #17 is correct, which seems to be the case, it looks like the website made clear the items were not available to buy 'on line'.

Edited August 9, 2021 by pedaes

[Herr Barnack]

From the book of 1st Barnack chapter 6: 

Quote

Brethren I say unto thee:  Order not thy gear from the Leica store where your bride doth labor, for it were better that a millstone were hanged about thy neck and thou be cast into the sea.

 

[willeica]

2 hours ago, pedaes said:

If post #17 is correct, which seems to be the case, it looks like the website made clear the items were not available to buy 'on line'.

Then it is an 'invitation to treat' by way of reservation to people who can present themselves in Vienna. There is no law against such a requirement. One must assume that the online listing is but an online advertisement of some kind and not a purchase method. 

I can think of other restrictions that I have seen including top of the range Ferraris which can only be ordered by existing customers. But flippers are everywhere despite restrictions.There is the situation that existed before with certain smartphones being new and in short supply. Then there are limited edition ( 500 copies) LP recordings that sell for 50 dollars and are on eBay for 500 dollars a day later.

This listing here tells me that Leica M10 Rs have reached the situation of demand exceeding supply.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/304090927759?hash=item46cd3b528f:g:rQ8AAOSwKk1hCN7T

We live in a crazy world where people want new toys and are prepared higher prices, than the manufacturer seeks, to get them, even if they waited for a few months they might get them cheaper. Value systems can be manipulated, of course, but is this really what life is all about? Should we be waking up in the morning and saying "my life won't be complete unless I get an M10 R today". I don't want to pass judgement on others and it is a matter that each person must rationalise for themselves. As a collector I often see items at auction that I would really like, but when the prices go too high I let them go and my life is still 'complete'. But that is me. We are all different in the way in which we approach such matters, but there is no absolute entitlement to own an M10 R. For what it is worth I have no interest in acquiring one.

William 

 

 

[bigbeeb]

7 hours ago, willeica said:

Then it is an 'invitation to treat' by way of reservation to people who can present themselves in Vienna. There is no law against such a requirement. One must assume that the online listing is but an online advertisement of some kind and not a purchase method. 

I can think of other restrictions that I have seen including top of the range Ferraris which can only be ordered by existing customers. But flippers are everywhere despite restrictions.There is the situation that existed before with certain smartphones being new and in short supply. Then there are limited edition ( 500 copies) LP recordings that sell for 50 dollars and are on eBay for 500 dollars a day later.

This listing here tells me that Leica M10 Rs have reached the situation of demand exceeding supply.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/304090927759?hash=item46cd3b528f:g:rQ8AAOSwKk1hCN7T

We live in a crazy world where people want new toys and are prepared higher prices, than the manufacturer seeks, to get them, even if they waited for a few months they might get them cheaper. Value systems can be manipulated, of course, but is this really what life is all about? Should we be waking up in the morning and saying "my life won't be complete unless I get an M10 R today". I don't want to pass judgement on others and it is a matter that each person must rationalise for themselves. As a collector I often see items at auction that I would really like, but when the prices go too high I let them go and my life is still 'complete'. But that is me. We are all different in the way in which we approach such matters, but there is no absolute entitlement to own an M10 R. For what it is worth I have no interest in acquiring one.

William 

 

 

I totally agree with you. So I spent lot of my time focused on their webpage. However no Leica camera don't affect my life.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, so out of curiosity, I visited the Vienna Leica Store.

First up, it has online purchasing or reserve and pick up in store.  So, online purchasing is allowed for.  If you select that, there is a note - worldwide shipping is only available for existing customers.  If you wish to purchase as a new customer, you need to contact the store.

Now, I assume that Austrian law applies to any contract (though, please note that the accepted conflict of laws rules for internet commerce is that the applicable law is the law where the person accessed the website - so, unless agreed otherwise, if I access a global website, as opposed to one restricted to domestic access, then NZ law applies).  For current purposes, I assume that Austrian contract law is similar to ours (there is a Convention on the International Sale of Goods).

As mentioned above (derleica?), contract is tortured into offer and acceptance.  This didn’t work so well with supermarket transactions (are you accepting an offer when you take your goods off the shelf, in which case you’re committed to buy?), so the concept of “invitation to treat” was invented - goods on the shelf are invitations, you “offer” to buy them at the checkout, and your offer is “accepted” when it is rung up.  It doesn’t really work very well, as is clear.  You could say the offer is made when the total is rung up, and accepted when you pay.  The real question is the point at which you, the buyer, are committed to pay, and Leica committed to deliver.

Turning to our friends in Vienna - the camera and lenses were listed as available for sale.  At that point, there is clearly no contract.  You “Add to cart”, much like our supermarket example.  You read the little note about worldwide shipping, VAT etc, and you click “Proceed to checkout”, then fill in your credit card details.  At that point, there isn’t a committed contract either.  For example, when I last bought from Leica Berlin, at the point I tried to pay, the system told me that Leica would revert to me (shipping cost, ex-VAT etc).  They then gave me the revised price, I confirmed and the lens was shipped.

In the OP’s example, it went right through to charging his credit card.  Now, Leica may have had a million reasons to want to cancel that sale (buying too much being the most implausible), but on any estimation of the legal position, a contract HAD been formed - they had the money.

I have had this issue with Leica SE Asia in the past - getting a price for a camera through their dealer network, confirming the order and paying the deposit (contract formed), only for Leica to try to cancel the sale.  I had to go to the most senior person I could contact in Solms (it was a while ago) to get them to understand (1) I was a good long term customer, and (2) they were in breach of contract and I wasn’t going away.  It transpired that it was the manager for SE Asia who had decided (of his own volition) to ignore Leica’s legal obligations.

Sounds like the OP might have struck the same guy …

[bigbeeb]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Okay, so out of curiosity, I visited the Vienna Leica Store.

First up, it has online purchasing or reserve and pick up in store.  So, online purchasing is allowed for.  If you select that, there is a note - worldwide shipping is only available for existing customers.  If you wish to purchase as a new customer, you need to contact the store.

Now, I assume that Austrian law applies to any contract (though, please note that the accepted conflict of laws rules for internet commerce is that the applicable law is the law where the person accessed the website - so, unless agreed otherwise, if I access a global website, as opposed to one restricted to domestic access, then NZ law applies).  For current purposes, I assume that Austrian contract law is similar to ours (there is a Convention on the International Sale of Goods).

As mentioned above (derleica?), contract is tortured into offer and acceptance.  This didn’t work so well with supermarket transactions (are you accepting an offer when you take your goods off the shelf, in which case you’re committed to buy?), so the concept of “invitation to treat” was invented - goods on the shelf are invitations, you “offer” to buy them at the checkout, and your offer is “accepted” when it is rung up.  It doesn’t really work very well, as is clear.  You could say the offer is made when the total is rung up, and accepted when you pay.  The real question is the point at which you, the buyer, are committed to pay, and Leica committed to deliver.

Turning to our friends in Vienna - the camera and lenses were listed as available for sale.  At that point, there is clearly no contract.  You “Add to cart”, much like our supermarket example.  You read the little note about worldwide shipping, VAT etc, and you click “Proceed to checkout”, then fill in your credit card details.  At that point, there isn’t a committed contract either.  For example, when I last bought from Leica Berlin, at the point I tried to pay, the system told me that Leica would revert to me (shipping cost, ex-VAT etc).  They then gave me the revised price, I confirmed and the lens was shipped.

In the OP’s example, it went right through to charging his credit card.  Now, Leica may have had a million reasons to want to cancel that sale (buying too much being the most implausible), but on any estimation of the legal position, a contract HAD been formed - they had the money.

I have had this issue with Leica SE Asia in the past - getting a price for a camera through their dealer network, confirming the order and paying the deposit (contract formed), only for Leica to try to cancel the sale.  I had to go to the most senior person I could contact in Solms (it was a while ago) to get them to understand (1) I was a good long term customer, and (2) they were in breach of contract and I wasn’t going away.  It transpired that it was the manager for SE Asia who had decided (of his own volition) to ignore Leica’s legal obligations.

Sounds like the OP might have struck the same guy …

Dear friend, thanks for your reply. I'm not a new customer at there. I alreade bought some lens and camera body there.

And you said - "a contract HAD been formed" - that is why I feel  sad and disappoint.

I think if Leica or Austria don't allows me to order too much, they shouldn't accepted the trade. 

I check my bill of credit cards, the trade of Noct 50mm 1.2 seems don't accepted, however, the MP and M10R payment already accepted. (although I ordered them on the same day, not same time).

I must say, Austria online store don't allow customer orders product which is out-of-stock. If customer could orders product and sucessfully paid, it means that they could deliver the product between 3-9 weekdays.

Last not the least, I had contacted Austria told why I want to bought these and aks to know more why order canceled, however they seems don't want to said to much. That made me like a unreasonable-person. ：(

[willeica]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Now, I assume that Austrian law applies to any contract (though, please note that the accepted conflict of laws rules for internet commerce is that the applicable law is the law where the person accessed the website - so, unless agreed otherwise, if I access a global website, as opposed to one restricted to domestic access, then NZ law applies).  For current purposes, I assume that Austrian contract law is similar to ours (there is a Convention on the International Sale of Goods).

 

That is the usual case and there are international treaties, directives and conventions to this effect.

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

In the OP’s example, it went right through to charging his credit card.  Now, Leica may have had a million reasons to want to cancel that sale (buying too much being the most implausible), but on any estimation of the legal position, a contract HAD been formed - they had the money.

There still would not be a contract until they had accepted the payment and agreed to send him the goods. If the non supply decision which applies in this case is a general one there should be a note to this effect on the website and the payment should not have gone through. However, if the decision was one which was specific to this customer that might not have been the case.

 

2 hours ago, bigbeeb said:

 

Last not the least, I had contacted Austria told why I want to bought these and aks to know more why order canceled, however they seems don't want to said to much. That made me like a unreasonable-person. ：(

As you have bought some goods from them already and are a 'customer' you should get an explanation from them. They are still not legally obliged to supply you with the item even if they have one in stock, but you should be reimbursed for any payments which have been taken.

William 

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, willeica said:

That is the usual case and there are international treaties, directives and conventions to this effect.

There still would not be a contract until they had accepted the payment and agreed to send him the goods. If the non supply decision which applies in this case is a general one there should be a note to this effect on the website and the payment should not have gone through. However, if the decision was one which was specific to this customer that might not have been the case.

 

As you have bought some goods from them already and are a 'customer' you should get an explanation from them. They are still not legally obliged to supply you with the item even if they have one in stock, but you should be reimbursed for any payments which have been taken.

William 

Hi William,

That would need to be explicit somewhere.  In traditional contract theory, an offer (wherever that is) has to be withdrawn, and the withdrawal communicated.  Having set up a system whic accepts payment, I don’t think Leica can then refuse to deliver.  To do that, the payment would need ot be pending until approved.

Did you spot some terms somewhere that said Leica could devline delivery after payment?  I confess, I didn’t look for terms and conditios - life is too short, sometimes 😃

[willeica]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Hi William,

That would need to be explicit somewhere.  In traditional contract theory, an offer (wherever that is) has to be withdrawn, and the withdrawal communicated.  Having set up a system whic accepts payment, I don’t think Leica can then refuse to deliver.  To do that, the payment would need ot be pending until approved.

Did you spot some terms somewhere that said Leica could devline delivery after payment?  I confess, I didn’t look for terms and conditios - life is too short, sometimes 😃

From the Leica Shop website:

2. Offers and conclusion of contract 

2.1.The product presentations and product descriptions of LCAT in the Store are not offers, but rather a no-obligation request to the customer to submit an offer through his/her order.

2.2.The order is made by the customer placing the selected product in the "shopping cart", going to the till after completion of shopping, selecting the terms and conditions of payment and shipment and after checking the order again sending off the order with the command "place binding order". 

2.3.By sending the order, the customer submits to LCAT a binding offer for conclusion of the contract. 

2.4.On receipt of the order by LCAT, LCAT will send the customer an electronic order message, indicating the order data. This order message is information about the receipt of the order by LCAT and is not yet to be understood as acceptance of the offer by LCAT.

2.5.The contract comes into effect with the written or electronic acceptance of the customer's offer by LCAT (confirmation of order). Solely the written or electronic order confirmation by LCAT is decisive for the content of the contract. 

2.6.LCAT saves the contract text and will provide the customer with a copy on request.

This is more or less as I indicated earlier. Just FYI , I was head of consumer protection in my country for about 8 years during the 1990s.

William 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

From the Leica Shop website:

2. Offers and conclusion of contract 

2.1.The product presentations and product descriptions of LCAT in the Store are not offers, but rather a no-obligation request to the customer to submit an offer through his/her order.

2.2.The order is made by the customer placing the selected product in the "shopping cart", going to the till after completion of shopping, selecting the terms and conditions of payment and shipment and after checking the order again sending off the order with the command "place binding order". 

2.3.By sending the order, the customer submits to LCAT a binding offer for conclusion of the contract. 

2.4.On receipt of the order by LCAT, LCAT will send the customer an electronic order message, indicating the order data. This order message is information about the receipt of the order by LCAT and is not yet to be understood as acceptance of the offer by LCAT.

2.5.The contract comes into effect with the written or electronic acceptance of the customer's offer by LCAT (confirmation of order). Solely the written or electronic order confirmation by LCAT is decisive for the content of the contract. 

2.6.LCAT saves the contract text and will provide the customer with a copy on request.

This is more or less as I indicated earlier. Just FYI , I was head of consumer protection in my country for about 8 years during the 1990s.

William 

Thanks William - I was too lazy to look that up (like most online terms and conditions).

I’m a contracts specialist (for coming on 40 years, admitted to the Bar in England and Wales, Hong Kong and New Zealand), having drafted tender and contract documents for major projects over that time (including the USD 20 billion Hong Kong airport project).  Not a pissing competition, but an explanation that this is also within my expertise.  For the last 20 years, I’ve been a full time arbitrator.

The above terms and conditions go some way to explaining Leica’s behaviour, however it doesn’t explain them accepting the payment.  Offering to purchase the products by putting them in the cart is one thing; charging the credit card is quite another, not covered by the terms above. It would be very interesting to see this properly argued in court.  As head of consumer protection in Ireland, how would you feel about Leica’s behaviour?  The consumer in this case was a prior, overseas customer, and following Leica’s rather arbitrary cancellation of his order (they did say “cancel” didn’t they?), he is left out of pocket on exchange rates at least …

Unlikely to be tested, though.  It is the sort of thing Austria’s consumer protection body should look at, and it is something any user of a Leica online store should be aware of.  The moral of this unfortunate experience is not to buy online from a Leica Store.  Legal issues aside, this is terrible business practice.  A useful warning to members here …

Best regards
John

[IkarusJohn]

You’ve piqued my interest, William.

There’s a lot of contradiction in the Terms and Conditions (including a statement that the goods “will be shipped”).  However, more critically, they do acknowledge that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) does apply.  Article 18(3) states as follows:

Quote

 (3)  However, if, by virtue of the offer or as a result of practices which  the  parties  have  established  between  themselves  or  of  usage,  the  offeree  may  indicate  assent  by  performing  an  act,  such  as  one  relating  to  the  dispatch  of  the goods or payment of the price, without notice to the offeror, the  acceptance  is effective at the moment the act is performed, provided that the act is  performed  within  the  period  of  time  laid  down  in  the  preceding  paragraph.

The express terms and conditions on the website (that credit cards are debited on order and the requirement for confirmation of the order to create a contract) are almost certainly definitive.  However, that doesn’t change what is clearly bad practice.

The more interesting question is, why?  If you make and sell camera equipment; you accept international orders; you list it as available for sale, why cancel the order?  I don’t see an AML dimension here, as I’m sure Leica would only refund to the credit card used.  It’s all very strange.

The reference to the CISG is simply to point out that, in normal international trade practice, the contract would be formed on payment - Leica had indicated the goods were available for sale, and its system took the payment - recognised by article 18(3) as contract formation.  Whether you could challenge the terms and conditions is another matter covered by lots of caselaw, too boring for here.

John

[250swb]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

The above terms and conditions go some way to explaining Leica’s behaviour, however it doesn’t explain them accepting the payment.  Offering to purchase the products by putting them in the cart is one thing; charging the credit card is quite another, not covered by the terms above.

Perhaps you should address this to the credit card company, they authorise the automatic payment structure and it doesn't rely on a minion siting behind a desk and pressing 'delete' a micro fraction of a second after somebody presses 'pay'.  In other words who turned down the payment, Leica or the credit card company, both with potentially valid reasons?

[willeica]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

You’ve piqued my interest, William.

There’s a lot of contradiction in the Terms and Conditions (including a statement that the goods “will be shipped”).  However, more critically, they do acknowledge that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) does apply.  Article 18(3) states as follows:

The express terms and conditions on the website (that credit cards are debited on order and the requirement for confirmation of the order to create a contract) are almost certainly definitive.  However, that doesn’t change what is clearly bad practice.

The more interesting question is, why?  If you make and sell camera equipment; you accept international orders; you list it as available for sale, why cancel the order?  I don’t see an AML dimension here, as I’m sure Leica would only refund to the credit card used.  It’s all very strange.

The reference to the CISG is simply to point out that, in normal international trade practice, the contract would be formed on payment - Leica had indicated the goods were available for sale, and its system took the payment - recognised by article 18(3) as contract formation.  Whether you could challenge the terms and conditions is another matter covered by lots of caselaw, too boring for here.

John

 

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

  Quote

 (3)  However, if, by virtue of the offer or as a result of practices which  the  parties  have  established  between  themselves  or  of  usage,  the  offeree  may  indicate  assent  by  performing  an  act,  such  as  one  relating  to  the  dispatch  of  the goods or payment of the price, without notice to the offeror, the  acceptance  is effective at the moment the act is performed, provided that the act is  performed  within  the  period  of  time  laid  down  in  the  preceding  paragraph

 The UN Convention would seem to largely apply to agreed processes eg where there were running repeat orders under an agreed process. This is more likely to be seen in business rather than consumer transactions. As I see it, the website listing is an invitation to treat, despite what is said in the terms and the 'order' placed by a customer is an offer to form a contract which is fulfilled when the offer is accepted. Here is where it gets tricky as it is a remote transaction and in order to accept that a contract has been formed it needs to be confirmed that funds to satisfy the contract are in place. In theory the Leica Shop could put in an extra stage to ask for funds to be sent when it is ready to form a contract, but I have rarely seen this type of thing for remote consumer transactions . For non remote transactions with a known customer a deposit is often sought in store with the balance due on collection. We are drifting here from law into business practices, of course. 

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Perhaps you should address this to the credit card company, they authorise the automatic payment structure and it doesn't rely on a minion siting behind a desk and pressing 'delete' a micro fraction of a second after somebody presses 'pay'.  In other words who turned down the payment, Leica or the credit card company, both with potentially valid reasons?

I think it is unlikely that this relates to money laundering as the regulations are usually imposed on banks rather than retailers. It could, however, be the case that the Leica Shop had received a notification from its own bank about particular cards or cards drawn on a particular bank. The more likely reason is some type of concern about reselling in certain markets. I am not saying that the OP is engaged in any such activity, of course. The Leica Shop could, perhaps, be more transparent about the reasons not to sell particular items to certain customers. I have never had any issues with the Leica Shop/Auction either under its previous owner or the current owner and I have not heard many complaints about the operation.

I feel that the OP should talk to the folks in Vienna on the phone to see if any more transparency is available, particularly if he/she intends to keep doing business with the Leica Shop.  

William 

Edited August 10, 2021 by willeica

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Perhaps you should address this to the credit card company, they authorise the automatic payment structure and it doesn't rely on a minion siting behind a desk and pressing 'delete' a micro fraction of a second after somebody presses 'pay'.  In other words who turned down the payment, Leica or the credit card company, both with potentially valid reasons?

I don't think the payment was turned down - that's the point.

Leica has set up its system to charge the credit card without confirmation of the order.

[IkarusJohn]

6 minutes ago, willeica said:

 The UN Convention would seem to largely apply to agreed processes eg where there were running repeat orders under an agreed process. This is more likely to be seen in business rather than consumer transactions. As I see it, the website listing is an invitation to treat, despite what is said in the terms and the 'order' placed by a customer is an offer to form a contract which is fulfilled when the offer is accepted. Here is where it gets tricky as it is a remote transaction and in order to accept that a contract has been formed it needs to be confirmed that funds to satisfy the contract are in place. In theory the Leica Shop could put in an extra stage to ask for funds to be sent when it is ready to form a contract, but I have rarely seen this type of thing for remote consumer transactions . For non remote transactions with a known customer a deposit is often sought in store with the balance due on collection. We are drifting here from law into business practices, of course.

It is expressly included in the Leica Terms and Conditions.

I agree that the terms and conditions are express -  a contract is only formed on notification of confirmation of the order.  This is the problem with the somewhat artificial concept of "offer and acceptance" and "invitation to treat", as invented in the Boots Cash Chemist case.  The core question is, based on reasonable expectations of the parties, when was the commitment to pay and the commitment to deliver the goods made?

The reality is, you see a camera you like, and put it in the "Cart", and go to "Checkout"; you then confirm the shipping address, enter your credit card details, and you click "Pay".  We may disagree, but to my mind, a contract is formed at that point.  When is acceptance?  It's automatic - Leica show the goods as available for purchase; you select the goods you wish to buy, and prefer payment; Leica then processes the payment.  The CISG isn't just for the sale of goods in trade - Leica includes reference to the convention in its terms and conditions.

However, the fine print would seem to allow Leica to say there's no contract without confirmation.  It doesn't refer anywhere to declining sales "at its discretion", nor does it refer to refunding purchase prices paid.  It is clear, however, that credit cards would be charged on order.  By comparison, has anyone heard of B&H Photo doing this?  They have their groovy little graphic, with the cart trundling off to the checkout, and then off to shipping ...

Anyway, and interesting discussion.  Not as clear, I don't think, as it would appear.  I seem to recall cases on the validity of fine print in online purchases (notwithstanding the click on accepting terms and conditions) - that's why we have the CISG convention.

[willeica]

12 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

It is expressly included in the Leica Terms and Conditions.

I agree that the terms and conditions are express -  a contract is only formed on notification of confirmation of the order.  This is the problem with the somewhat artificial concept of "offer and acceptance" and "invitation to treat", as invented in the Boots Cash Chemist case.  The core question is, based on reasonable expectations of the parties, when was the commitment to pay and the commitment to deliver the goods made?

The reality is, you see a camera you like, and put it in the "Cart", and go to "Checkout"; you then confirm the shipping address, enter your credit card details, and you click "Pay".  We may disagree, but to my mind, a contract is formed at that point.  When is acceptance?  It's automatic - Leica show the goods as available for purchase; you select the goods you wish to buy, and prefer payment; Leica then processes the payment.  The CISG isn't just for the sale of goods in trade - Leica includes reference to the convention in its terms and conditions.

However, the fine print would seem to allow Leica to say there's no contract without confirmation.  It doesn't refer anywhere to declining sales "at its discretion", nor does it refer to refunding purchase prices paid.  It is clear, however, that credit cards would be charged on order.  By comparison, has anyone heard of B&H Photo doing this?  They have their groovy little graphic, with the cart trundling off to the checkout, and then off to shipping ...

Anyway, and interesting discussion.  Not as clear, I don't think, as it would appear.  I seem to recall cases on the validity of fine print in online purchases (notwithstanding the click on accepting terms and conditions) - that's why we have the CISG convention.

This seems to apply to a recognised system between two parties whether by agreement or practice. In this case Leica also has specific terms which it applies and these terms are on its website. The issues here are not wholly legal, even if they are located behind a legal framework. Launching a legal challenge to Leica’s selling framework would not get the OP the M10R BP which he/she wants. Starting a case in the Hong Kong courts and enforcing any judgement obtained in Austria might take up to the time of the launch of the M12. I think it is better to talk than to go to legal war on this one.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

Absolutely - I have never suggested legal action.  Just instructing a good barrister would swallow the cost of the camera ...

[adan]

Would a Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 be considered "surveillance equipment?"

If so, might that - as a part of a €40000 order - have run afoul of this?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/28/eu-to-limit-export-of-sensitive-tech-in-response-to-hong-kong-security-law-384978

Which also includes "dual-use" products (don't forget Leica's - history - as a military optics contractor).

Sorry to touch on a sensitive subject area for the Forum - but sometimes that subject helps explain "mysteries." And sometimes officials can be over-enthusiastic.