4 ms·

The guy who bought the Chevy Tahoe for $1 [0] isn't going to get it, though. And that's also perfectly sensible. But at some point we're going to see more case

The guy who bought the Chevy Tahoe for $1 [0] isn't going to get it, though. And that's also perfectly sensible. But at some point we're going to see more cases in the grey area in between. What's the important difference? In both cases I think the result would be the same if the chatbot had been a human. GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone might agree to sell their whole stock to an accomplice for $1. The same applies to Air Canada, my buddy there can't "advise" me I get free flights for life and have that honoured. So where is the line? Is it about good faith by the customer, or about what a reasonable person might think the company would offer them? [0] https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121 https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakke/status/1736533308849443121

tomrod 3y ago
> GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone might agree to sell their whole stock to an accomplice for $1 The law doesn't protect a company in the world you laid out, internal compliance and controls do. A sales rep in a company with bad controls may well do exactly what you laid out.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Are you sure consideration[1] and unconscionability[2] don't form the basis for that type of legal protection? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability
  - jowea 3y ago
    I found this article which indicates this legal protection relates to the doctrine of unilateral mistake: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Thank you. It seemed like there would be some kind of legal principle at play.
- dmurray 3y ago
  This is nonsense. Can you imagine the chaos of a world where what you said is even close to true? I'm a cashier at Walmart. One day I sell to you for $100 - not just everything in the store, but the building, the local distribution centre and even the corporate headquarters. And in your view - Walmart has no legal recourse against me or against you? They should just peacefully vacate the buildings and hand over the keys? Their remedy to this is to discipline me according to their internal controls - maybe put me on a PIP and remind me that the company handbook forbids these deals? No, this just isn't a deal that can happen. It's not about reasonableness, consideration or unconscionability - the deal is void even if the buyer agreed to pay $100 million. It's not about good faith on the buyer's side - it's void even if you thought I was the VP of Real Estate. I can't sell Walmart's property at any price, even though I'm otherwise empowered to do business on behalf of the company.
fbdab103 3y ago
I think there is already established case law that a deal can be too-good-to-be-true. If you see a 90" TV on Amazon for $1, even if the order went through, Amazon is within their rights to cancel it as a mistake in pricing.
- skissane 3y ago
  I’ve seen before “too good to be true” offers that were actually scams. They offer you an (allegedly worth $99) hair dryer for only $3.95. In the fine print you don’t read, it says you are signing up to a monthly subscription (to what????), with an introductory low price of $3.95 the first month and $39.95 a month thereafter. They are hoping you won’t notice the recurring charge. And you never get the hair dryer (or at least, one person I know who got scammed this way never did-the bank even refused to reverse the initial $3.95 charge, since it had been authorised through their mobile app, although they did reverse the subsequent ones.)
- jowea 3y ago
  Quick search found this article discussing it : https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/
SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
There's multiple ways to deal with those issues of course, but in those cases there is an actual legal entity who can be held accountable. If the chatbot on their website is its own legal entity, how exactly does one sue it, and who actually pays damages? This judgement remains in the sensible part of law and in doing so, sidesteps a massive, unexplored, and highly problematic can of worms.
overstay8930 3y ago
The line has been defined a long time ago, AI chat bots are considered regular customer service agents because no law has said otherwise, and they represent themselves as such, and we already know that reasonable things said by customer service agents can be taken as fact.
ryandrake 3y ago
Somehow, I bet if the sales rep or a chatbot convinced the guy to pay $200K for a Chevy Tahoe, the full force of GM's legal team would ensure the customer was held to that. But, when it goes the other way, and the sales rep or chatbot is convinced to sell it for $1, suddenly it's not "sensible."

tomrod 3y ago

> GM doesn't have to honour every promise a sales rep makes, even if that rep is nominally entitled to enter into contracts for the company - otherwise someone might agree to sell their whole stock to an accomplice for $1 The law doesn't protect a company in the world you laid out, internal compliance and controls do. A sales rep in a company with bad controls may well do exactly what you laid out.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
Are you sure consideration[1] and unconscionability[2] don't form the basis for that type of legal protection? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability
- jowea 3y ago
  I found this article which indicates this legal protection relates to the doctrine of unilateral mistake: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Thank you. It seemed like there would be some kind of legal principle at play.
dmurray 3y ago
This is nonsense. Can you imagine the chaos of a world where what you said is even close to true? I'm a cashier at Walmart. One day I sell to you for $100 - not just everything in the store, but the building, the local distribution centre and even the corporate headquarters. And in your view - Walmart has no legal recourse against me or against you? They should just peacefully vacate the buildings and hand over the keys? Their remedy to this is to discipline me according to their internal controls - maybe put me on a PIP and remind me that the company handbook forbids these deals? No, this just isn't a deal that can happen. It's not about reasonableness, consideration or unconscionability - the deal is void even if the buyer agreed to pay $100 million. It's not about good faith on the buyer's side - it's void even if you thought I was the VP of Real Estate. I can't sell Walmart's property at any price, even though I'm otherwise empowered to do business on behalf of the company.

fbdab103 3y ago

I think there is already established case law that a deal can be too-good-to-be-true. If you see a 90" TV on Amazon for $1, even if the order went through, Amazon is within their rights to cancel it as a mistake in pricing.

skissane 3y ago
I’ve seen before “too good to be true” offers that were actually scams. They offer you an (allegedly worth $99) hair dryer for only $3.95. In the fine print you don’t read, it says you are signing up to a monthly subscription (to what????), with an introductory low price of $3.95 the first month and $39.95 a month thereafter. They are hoping you won’t notice the recurring charge. And you never get the hair dryer (or at least, one person I know who got scammed this way never did-the bank even refused to reverse the initial $3.95 charge, since it had been authorised through their mobile app, although they did reverse the subsequent ones.)
jowea 3y ago
Quick search found this article discussing it : https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/ https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol75/iss2/9/

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago

There's multiple ways to deal with those issues of course, but in those cases there is an actual legal entity who can be held accountable. If the chatbot on their website is its own legal entity, how exactly does one sue it, and who actually pays damages? This judgement remains in the sensible part of law and in doing so, sidesteps a massive, unexplored, and highly problematic can of worms.

overstay8930 3y ago

The line has been defined a long time ago, AI chat bots are considered regular customer service agents because no law has said otherwise, and they represent themselves as such, and we already know that reasonable things said by customer service agents can be taken as fact.

ryandrake 3y ago

Somehow, I bet if the sales rep or a chatbot convinced the guy to pay $200K for a Chevy Tahoe, the full force of GM's legal team would ensure the customer was held to that. But, when it goes the other way, and the sales rep or chatbot is convinced to sell it for $1, suddenly it's not "sensible."