What is the value of a contract if the price is mistakenly too low?

What is the value of a contract if the price is mistakenly too low?

"I bought a case on a Swiss website for 70 francs less 20%. I received the goods within a few days. Two weeks after ordering, I received an email informing me that there was an error in the price displayed and that I had to choose between paying the difference with the real price (i.e. 425 francs!) or returning the case. Their general terms and conditions state that the contract is only concluded on condition that delivery takes place and that there is no price error. Is this legal?"

In Switzerland, for a contract to be validly concluded, there must be an offer from one party and acceptance of that offer by the other party. In this case, the website you consulted contained such an offer, indicating a price that you accepted. A contract of sale was therefore validly concluded.

Nevertheless, the contract does not bind the party who, at the time of entering into the contract, was under the influence of an essential error. In a contract of sale, the price is indeed an essential element. In this case, the price you paid for the goods was more than six times lower than it apparently should have been. The seller could therefore invoke the error to claim payment of the price difference.

In addition, the site's general terms and conditions include a sort of suspensive condition, stating that the contract is only deemed to have been concluded once the buyer has received the item and provided that the price indicated is correct. This clause enables the seller to protect himself against any error in price indication.

It should be pointed out that the law on unfair competition states that anyone who, contrary to the rules of good faith, provides for a significant and unjustified disproportion between the rights and obligations arising from the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, is acting unfairly. As the clause in question was designed precisely to avoid a significant difference between what the consumer receives and what he pays, it seems difficult to assert that there would be such a disproportion.

As a result, the seller of your briefcase appears to be well and truly entitled to demand full payment of its true price or the return of the item. To this end, he can either rely on his general terms and conditions or on his mistake, which is protected by the law of obligations, insofar as it can be accepted that it is essential.