False Advertising!

[willow]

Kayako have never been well know for their customer support but breaking the law by way of false advertising is a completely new level.

An extra domain licence is advertised in you Knowledgbase at $49.95 http://support.kayako.com/index.php?...eid=46&nav=0,2
yet it is advertised in the Members aread at $99.95.

Im not sure where you stand in the USA but within Europe it is illegal to advertise something at a lower price and then refuse to sell it at that price

While your software is great your customer service is abismal and perhaps the authorities can bring you down a peg or two

[Varun Shoor]

Hi,
Apparently we forgot to update the price in our knowledgebase article. I will get this changed as soon as possible.

Sorry for any confusion this might have caused.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[Raghav Arora]

Apologies for the inconvenience. The article has been updated.

Please let us know if there is anything else.

Regards,

Raghav Arora

[Digital Mayhem]

I think he wants you to sell it to him for $49.95 even though its listed for $99.95 at http://www.kayako.net/pricing.php?product=supportsuite and in the Members Area so no false advertising going on.... I would understand if he went to members area to purchase it and it said $49.95 and he clicked it entered his credit card info but ended up being charged $99.95 then yes I would say that is false advertisement and would be really pissed...

[nibb]

Well its not false advertising, but i agree he wants it for 49.5$. The extra license means the whole kayako on a new domain or just the client interface?

[supportskins]

Originally Posted by nibb

The extra license means the whole kayako on a new domain or just the client interface?

The whole kayako on a new domain, you can install it seperately.

[jc11]

It is valid for any client to complain about a product or service, I suggest that we clients avoid terms such as "false advertisement" since this will involve unlawful activities that are not a practice at Kayako.

Varun and his team are a responsible company and they adhere to international law, our company has witnessed this for years.

Best,

[willow]

Actually it was advertised in their own knowledgebase at $49.95 and as such i would expect to pay that price. Here in the UK if you go into a shop and see something advertised at a lower price and find when you get to the till that they have priced it wrong then they must sell it to you at that price - hence false advertising

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by willow

Actually it was advertised in their own knowledgebase at $49.95 and as such i would expect to pay that price. Here in the UK if you go into a shop and see something advertised at a lower price and find when you get to the till that they have priced it wrong then they must sell it to you at that price - hence false advertising

Hi willow,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We did our best to rectify the problem immediately.

In the UK (EU, or US) law, this is not classed as false advertising - as in anywhere else in the world, it is classed as a simple mistake. False advertising would be if we said (as an example) "This item costs $10.00" and after you bought it it turned out you have to pay a further $5.00 to use it.

[jc11]

Hi,
I am the Marketing Director at Soft Air and after many years of doing business with Kayako, I can assure you that Kayako Infotech will never have the intention to practice false advertisement as strategy, this situation is simply an error that we as users must report and accept since this was the consequence of a mistake rather than a bad intention.

Thanks for reading,

[supportskins]

I think this is being taken too far. Varun accepted that it was a mistake in the KB article as it was not updated. That should seal the issue.

[willow]

Originally Posted by supportskins

I think this is being taken too far. Varun accepted that it was a mistake in the KB article as it was not updated. That should seal the issue.

I agree it should be closed now. I still dissagree with the pricing in that it was advertised at a lower price and i then had to pay a higher price but theres no point in keep going over old ground. I think its out of order but im certainly not suprised.

Sh#t happens, time to move on.

[pirhana]

Originally Posted by willow

Here in the UK if you go into a shop and see something advertised at a lower price and find when you get to the till that they have priced it wrong then they must sell it to you at that price

NOT true. This is what many consumers use in an attempt to purchase the item at the lower price, but it is not 100% correct:

In the UK, if an item has been priced incorrectly, by mistake, the store must correct the error as soon as practically possible after being informed of the error. They must sell you the item at the lower price ONLY if you can prove it was intentionally marked at a lower price. The onus is on you to prove it was an intentional ploy to wrongly attract new custom.

[ansuk]

Originally Posted by pirhana

NOT true. This is what many consumers use in an attempt to purchase the item at the lower price, but it is not 100% correct:

In the UK, if an item has been priced incorrectly, by mistake, the store must correct the error as soon as practically possible after being informed of the error. They must sell you the item at the lower price ONLY if you can prove it was intentionally marked at a lower price. The onus is on you to prove it was an intentional ploy to wrongly attract new custom.

Actually you are wrong. My full time job is Customer Service Manager at Tesco in Aldershot (UK) and i was bitten on the ar#e with this over Christmas.
One of our staff had misprinted a price ticket for the Xbox 360 Premium Pack for £27.99 which should have been £279.99 and when the customer went to checkout found he was to be charged the full price. He ofcourse showed me the ticket and because it was indeed advertised at £27.99 I had to honour that. Needless to say the member of staff was dealt with and i had to pay the outstanding balance out of my own pocket.

So the OP is correct, if something was indeed advertised at the lower price then Kayako should have honoured that price and then changed the advert. Whether it is a genuine mistake or not is neither here nor there although im sure it certainly wasnt done on purpose.

Customer service is the issue here and while there was only £25/$50 difference, in the name of Customer Service and keeping the customer happy then Kayako should really have honoured it instead of risking loosing a customer.

@OP - Did you still pay the new price?

[Jamie Edwards]

Because the original poster started this subject form the perspective of UK law and this theme has been continued by asnuk, I will reply as such. But please do keep in mind Kayako is not a company trading from the UK.

==

The Tesco (supermarket) analogy you gave above does not at all describe the correct position about this under UK law, which is governed by the case 'Pharmaceuticals Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemist (1953)'.

Using legal terminology, the advertised or labels price is a "invitation to treat" (also known as "an offer to chaffer"). For the purposes of the contract, the advertised price is not an offer capable of acceptance.

The offer is made when the customer takes the goods to the till (checkout) and offers to buy them for the stated price. The shop owner has a choice of accepting that offer to create a binding contact or making a counter-offer.

There is no binding contract until there has been offer and acceptance identifying both the good and the price. Therefore the person at the till can make a counter-offer to sell at the higher price, which the customer can then accept or reject. Persistent mislabelling may be a Trading Standards offence, but this does not affect the law of contract.

Different rules apply to offers made "at large" (an offer in a newspaper, for example) and it is still arguable as to which set of rules apply to websites.

==

Going back to the subject - this was a mistake. I do believe that the apologies offered in this thread are sufficient, and once again I apologise for any inconvenience encountered.

Thank you,