In stores:
If an item is priced incorrectly on the shelf, or scans at the wrong price at the till, retailers are under no obligation to honour it, under the Sale of Goods Act. They can offer the item at the correct price or refuse your money and withdraw the product from sale.
If a pricing mistake is not noticed and the customer pays for an item at the reduced cost, the purchase is considered a legally binding contract between the retailer and the customer. The shop has no legal right to claw back any money if it later realises there has been an error.
In this case, it's pretty clear. Once the opportunity has passed for staff to spot the error, it is lost for good once the transaction has been completed and the customer has the product.
Online:
The situation is not as clear-cut online.
The legally binding contract is complete when a retailer accepts an order. However, acceptance does not necessarily happen at the point of order. Even the confirmation email may not be an acceptance. Some retailers reserve the right to cancel an order up to the point of delivery. It is therefore important to carefully check the retailer’s terms and conditions (which must be available on their website) and emails – if a retailer simply acknowledges an order, there may be no contract at that point.
According to Screwfix’s terms and conditions on its website this week, it only accepts orders once it has delivered the goods. It says the processing of a payment and acknowledgement of an order does not constitute a legally binding contract.
As with in-store purchases, once a customer has received their order a retailer generally has no right to claw back any money.
In this case, it can be argued that the contract was struck when the player deposited and the agent for the company credited the bonus. Having been struck at this point, so long as the player wagers according to the rules attached, such as bet amounts and games played, the contract remains valid.
32Red might argue that the contract is only struck once the player either loses the balance of succeeds in making WR and withdraws. This will be where the court has to decide which of these two points represents the creation of the legally binding contract, or in other words, the point where "the purchase was completed". The "purchase" in this case is a play bonus priced at £1000, but where the "cashier" screwed up when processing the transaction, effectively giving a "buy one, get one free" offer in error, but didn't notice before finalising the transaction.
The catch:
One essential element of a contract is an intention to create legal relations. If an item has been very heavily discounted and it is clear that an error has occurred, the trader could say that it was obvious that they had no intention to form a contract at that price.
Now, this is pretty much the argument presented by 32Red after the error was spotted when a withdrawal was submitted. 32Red say it was "obvious" that this was an error, and that they had no intention of forming the contract at that price.
In the Screwfix case for example, the company could argue that a ride-on mower that normally costs £1,599.99 would not ever be on sale for £34.99 – and the consumer must have been aware this was a mistake.
Now, will this "must have been aware" argument hold sway when the difference is smaller, such as two "items" of entertainment for the price of one being an error that is "obvious to the customer".
Where an item could feasibly be priced at £34.99, something normally priced at £40 for instance, Screwfix would probably have to rely solely on its terms and conditions.
This is what 32Red are doing in this case, but consumers have a legal weapon against this in the consumer protection laws.
Stuart Helmer, of law firm CMS, said: “The growth of e-commerce creates huge potential for a computer glitch to lead to widespread pricing errors. Screwfix are just the latest in a long line of retailers to be caught out in this way.
Not just retailers, but glitches are happening in the online casino industry, as is the case here (albeit a human glitch, not a computer).
“However, if the retailer has drafted its terms and conditions carefully – which Screwfix appears to have done – then, unless it has deliberately misled customers, it will usually be legally entitled to cancel the order right up to the point of delivery. Whether it chooses to do so is a question of public relations, not legal rights.”
This is the key, what is the "point of delivery" in this case, the application of the bonus, or the payment of the withdrawal. If this "point of delivery" is judged to have passed before the error was spotted, then no amount of terms and conditions are going to help the company.