Retailer Threatens Legal Action for Using 90% off Coupon

fortunecookie on 12/08/2025 - 20:41
Last edited 12/08/2025 - 20:41

I recently found a 90% off coupon code that worked on a retailer's website. I placed an order with the code to test it out. It went through and the item got delivered.

A few weeks later, the retailer came back to me asking for the full payment of the item and threatened legal actions.

From a legal perspective, my understanding is that:

  • If the coupon code is not authorised as they claimed, they should have cancelled the transaction before sending out the goods.
  • Given the order is already delivered, the transaction is complete. As such they have no right to ask for payments retrospectively.

What are your thoughts on this?

General Discussion

Comments

  • ricadam on 14/08/2025 - 11:54

    The vast majority of shopping site have the same few back end platforms (Think Wordpress, Shopify, Magento etc.). All have similar methods to create coupons. None are created without the business knowing. Rules can be set to allow time based or usage based expiries. If one of those settings aren't set properly that can be exploited. For example, devs could have a cheap % discount code for testing purposed and forget to disable it, or it could be a one-off purchase at 90% that wasn't set to be one off and then that code has been shared to someone else.

    All responsibility is on the business to maintain that coupon code database. If you legitimatly just guessed a code and it happened to work, then that's not on you. however If you got the code from a friend or were involved in the business (web developer) or friend of etc. and you got the code maliciously. Then you may be in hot water.

    • Cluster on 14/08/2025 - 12:17
      +1

      That is an interesting angle I had not considered. Was the code used for testing, or meant for only one person in a specific case? The OP (AFAIK) never mentioned how the code was obtained. Was the code generated by an insider and not legitimate?

      I know of a case where a supermarket worker discounted dairy products 90%+ and hid them for her friends to find and buy. She was sacked on the spot.

    • fortunecookie on 14/08/2025 - 12:30

      No, that wasn't how I got the code. No friend or insider knowledge involved. As mentioned above, I'm not clever enough to do tricky web developer stuff to mess with their system.

      • ricadam on 14/08/2025 - 12:55
        +29

        Why aren't you sharing how you got the code then? That part plays a big role in whether they are justified or not in coming after you

        • Cluster on 14/08/2025 - 14:11
          +8

          Indeed. We're only getting half the required information.

          • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 15:12

            @Cluster: Meh, we can really only provide our opinions at face value.

            Clearly, if OP has done something dodgy, or he's not providing all of the relevant information, then anything we are suggesting is unlikely to be how things work out for him.

            It has been interesting to learn about ways this might be dodgy though.

        • MessyG on 14/08/2025 - 18:36
          +3

          They probably just typed "90OFF" to see if it work and it did…

      • frostman on 16/08/2025 - 18:42

        If this was a 90% marketed by the business, and they decided they dont want to run the promotion anymore - fair game, you keep it.

        But again, you're being intentionally misleading and havn't given the full story.

        You've come here seeking support and moral positivity.

  • haemolysis on 14/08/2025 - 11:58
    +19

    It's amazing how fear of being sued or something scares people into repeatedly asking questions in this format. "I used censored coupon code obtained by censored means, at censored retailer with censored T&Cs for censored goods worth censored value. What are the implications?"

    With all the assumptions you've left us, we can conclude something in-between "profit" and "jail", I guess!! Who knows.

    You're assumably not under an NDA. As long as you don't say something false (defamatory), you are not obliged to protect a retailer. Just spill some beans. Otherwise, you're asking a pointless question.

    I can only assume you haven't agreed to a T&C or committed fraud, so, if that's the case: block them. Most businesses can afford a little stock loss.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 14/08/2025 - 17:50

      Actually it is very wise not to name and shame.
      If they are a small enough business (e.g. fewer than 10 employees), you could land in strife.
      Larger companies generally can't be defamed per se.
      I know of small businesses that have successfully sued for comments online such as bad reviews.

      … but in most states your ultimate defence is to just tell the absolute truth you can prove with no embellishment.

      • haemolysis on 15/08/2025 - 10:37
        -1

        So you're just repeating what I said basically. If you don't say something false and defamatory, then nothing to fear.

        This is how that goes down in court:

        "Defendant said we did X."
        "But you did."
        "Case closed."

        • Daabido on 17/08/2025 - 09:57

          You forgot to mention that defamation cases usually cost between $200,000 and $500,000 for fairly simple matters, for both sides. Even if you win, you don't get your full cost back, let alone the emotional distress for over a year before it gets to trial.

          It makes lawyers rich, but that is all usually.

          I'm constantly surprised by people who don't know how expensive court action is. You don't just wander down in your footy shirts, wife beater, and court thongs and say, "Hey judge. Rule on this would you." Unless you are a defendant at the Magistrate's Court.

      • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 15:31
        +3

        This is true.

        Note there are other defences to defamation, but as you say "the truth" is an awesome one.

        The Bruce Lehrmann defamation case is a great recent example here.

        Bruce claimed that (Channel 10?) said that when they identified him as a rapist, they were being defamatory.

        At this stage, there truly was no proof that Bruce was a rapist.

        So, when Bruce took his claim to court, the defendant used the valid defence of truth.

        Ultimately, the defendants were able to provide enough proof for Justice Lee to affirm that on the balance of probabilities, Bruce was a rapist.

        Thus, the claim of defamation was not successful.

        Whilst Bruce has not been found to be a rapist to the criminal standard (thus no criminal penalties apply at this stage), he has been declared to be a rapist to the civil standard, so it is legally truthful to call him a rapist at this stage.

        However, last time I looked, Bruce was appealing this decision, so…..

  • Piranha2004 on 14/08/2025 - 12:45

    Unless they found you deliberately deceived them then they can pursue you. Example would be if the code you used was targeted to someone else and you claimed it on their behalf etc. Either way, its a slim chance to actually eventuate into legal action. In essence, the transaction has been completed successfully by both parties.

    EDIT: Its also up to the retailer to ensure their voucher/codes are restricted to certain set of users and/or have the relevant expiry dates in place. Ive known of instances where codes have continued to work well beyond their intended time/date and the retailer couldnt do anything about it.

    EDIT2: Lol just realised its already been stated above.

  • bio on 14/08/2025 - 12:45
    -2

    You're assumably not under an NDA. As long as you don't say something false (defamatory), you are not obliged to protect a retailer. Just spill some beans. Otherwise, you're asking a pointless question.

    I wouldn't give them such legal advice unless you are an attorney, and ready to represent them if things go south.

    • haemolysis on 14/08/2025 - 14:00

      Well, if I'm mistaken then I'll take the burden.

    • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 15:38
      +1

      How is it legal advice?

      Poster didn't claim to be a lawyer. I'm not even sure that he claimed to have any legal knowledge.

      This is a public forum, the poster has provided his opinion.

      Generally speaking, opinions are free, advice costs money.

      Trust me on this "some anonymous, random dude on the internet told me this information is true", is not going to have any legal repercussions for their opinion.

      • bio on 15/08/2025 - 17:30

        Not sure why my post is not under the original comment, I must have used the wrong text box, but I was replying to this comment.

        Trust me on this "some anonymous, random dude on the internet told me this information is true", is not going to have any legal repercussions for their opinion.

        I wasn't implying that there would be legal repercussions. I just said it's not right to post that confidently ("[…] you are not obliged to protect a retailer. Just spill some beans.") unless you are a lawyer.

        • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 17:41

          But it isn't legal advice to begin with?

          FTR, wiki entries might not be true either.

          Just because you saw it on the internet, doesn't make it true.

          The poster even used the word assume!

          What legal advice turns on something that is assumed? Even reference to the word indicates that the poster isn't claiming to know it.

  • jaimex2 on 14/08/2025 - 12:51
    +3

    Your assumptions are correct op

    Only thing left to do now is see if the coupon or variations of it work on more stuff they sell. Then post it here

  • BrisbaneGoose on 14/08/2025 - 13:25

    The best thing you can do at this stage is nothing - don't engage with them. If you actually receive a letter of demand that you had to sign for, that is when you may consider legal advice or responding very carefully.

  • Poor Ass on 14/08/2025 - 14:23
    +1

    we are all curious what item was bought

  • Atomik17 on 14/08/2025 - 14:51

    They won't do shit. Legal proceedings for a little money is not worth it. Unless we talking 10k++++

  • churningNburning on 14/08/2025 - 16:18
    +4

    Spill the beans OP, it's time to come clean and let us know the business, item / discount and where you got the code from :D

  • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 17:40
    +2

    A few weeks later, the retailer came back to me asking for the full payment of the item and threatened legal actions.

    Legal action for what?

    Legal action against who?

    Unless he can prove that you did something illegal (idk, hacked his system?) then he has no legal claim with you.

    If the coupon code is not authorised as they claimed, they should have cancelled the transaction before sending out the goods.

    Presuming that you're providing us with all the information, this is a "him" problem. At the very least, it's not a "you" problem.

    Clearly somebody authorised it or the contract should have been prevented from being created.

    Given the order is already delivered, the transaction is complete. As such they have no right to ask for payments retrospectively.

    Actual delivery probably isn't even relevant in this situation (different if you never received it).

    Transaction was pretty much completed the moment that the electronic contract was created.

    Of course they have a right to ask for retrospective payment, but you are not legally obligated to say "yes".

    It seems like your seller doesn't know how contracts are formed or how they work.

    Presuming you haven't done something fraudulent or illegal in some other way, let the seller take as much legal action as he wants. It has nothing to do with you.

    Like, does he think he can report you to ACCC?

    I'm really curious what he thinks he is going to sue you for.

  • Muppet Detector on 14/08/2025 - 17:53
    +1

    The bare basics are

    Seller advertised a product for sale.

    You made seller an offer

    Seller accepted the offer.

    Once again, presuming nothing nefarious or illegal, the only option for seller is to claim he had no intention to be legally bound.

    Case law around electronic contracts is still very new so there's not very much precedent out there, but non intention usually only happens with things like coercion etc.

    Gonna be tough for seller to say that he not only accepted your offer and then he also delivered it to you to now come back and say "I didn't mean it".

    Supposed to work out your mistakes or whether you want to enter a contract, before you agree to create that contract.

  • geekcohen on 15/08/2025 - 05:52

    Not exactly the same, but we had a scenario where this retailer took ages to send the goods, and it seemed like a dodgy website. Called their number on the website and it appeared to work, but seemed dodgy as we sat on hold for ages. My wife did a chargeback and then a week or so later, the goods turned up! $300 or so worth of garden bed flat packs.

    The retailer contacted my wife and said, "you did a chargeback, you need to pay us since we sent the goods". Well, we didn't want them any more because we went and bought others from Bunnings. I said, "you if you want them back, arrange a courier for collection". Well, they didn't and they sat in the garage from probably two years, before I chucked them out recently.

    I wonder what they would say if your response was, "take the product back" and whether they would arrange anything further.

    Also, come on and tell us, what is the product and what value is it worth?

    • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 14:02
      -4

      You did it the right way.

      Had you have kept those goods, you would have still owed him the $300 as this was the price the contract said you both agreed to to satisfy the requirement of consideration.

      However, you have effectively negotiated a change to the contract by "mutual agreement".

      (Mutual agreement is one of the three ways you can terminate a contract).

      Your counter offer to "pay me $300" was "I want to return the products, I'm making them available for you to collect, you just have to collect them".

      Assuming that was the end of the negotiation and we're not in the ballpark of abandoned property, it seems like your seller has said "ok, I accept the return, but icbf organising their collection so I'm happy for you to keep them".

      However, if the seller did want to pursue that $300, I am quite certain that the court would have required you to pay that money as that was the contractual agreement.

      Maybe there was wriggle room if delivery time was completely unreasonable and out of the seller's control, but at the very least, you would have been required to return the goods.

      You don't get to keep the goods and the money.

      More wriggle room if you claim that you never received the delivery at all. In this case, seller would need to prove that the items were delivered. If he couldn't, then he would need to rely on insurance or restitution from wherever the delivery process failed. He couldn't require you to pay for something that you never received.

      So you are right.

      Your scenario is a bit different.

      This one seems to be about both parties getting what they agreed to but then one party decides he wants to change his mind after both sides of the contract has been performed according to the contract terms.

  • Zenstrukt on 15/08/2025 - 07:58
    +2

    They effectively created the “sweet” part of a honeypot themselves (a live coupon code on their own platform) and left it active. By choosing to fulfil the order rather than cancel it, they’ve also exposed weaknesses in their internal process for validating and authorising discount codes before dispatch.

    Question is, did they de-activate the coupon code thereafter? 😇

  • speedoflight on 15/08/2025 - 09:40

    Depends how you got the code. If it was a code for only a select amount of people and you got it without authorisation then they may have a case.

    • Muppet Detector on 15/08/2025 - 14:15
      +1

      Apparently it was authorised. They sent the goods.

      Even if they didn't intend that the coupon be valid, they needed to challenge the validity that a contract existed before they completed it (by sending the item), not a few weeks after the buyer has received it.

      (Unless there is proof buyer did something naughty to obtain and/or use the voucher).

      Electronic contracts are a bit tricky, because in a lot of these contracts for sale, the processes for creating a contract all happen very quickly with very limited opportunity to physically intervene in a timely manner, but that is the risk that each party bears for dealing with electronic contracts.

      Just as the seller can't change the agreed upon price after the contract is formed (unless there is mutual agreement to do so), the buyer can't agree to pay $1000 and then later demand that the seller charges them a different (presumably lower) price.

  • whitepuma on 15/08/2025 - 09:41

    typically i would say to just ignore the retailer until something legal in writing comes through to you….but i guess to properly understand the situation it would be better if we knew the following:
    1. What's the value of the goods?
    2. What's the details or fineprint of the coupon (i.e. is it an employee only coupon, is the coupon meant to be stacked with something, etc)
    3. How did you acquire said coupon?
    4. Do you have a receipt of purchase?

  • gutwagon on 15/08/2025 - 10:25
    +8

    I'm guessing the retailer is Sexyland that's why you won't tell us what the product is.

    • wetsandwich on 15/08/2025 - 14:41
      +1

      A $1000 d1ldo has to be pretty impressive. Even better if it's down to $100.

  • wallaceff on 15/08/2025 - 11:34

    I wonder how the company would respond if: company sold you the product at full price, then put a code for a discount on their website and you asked them to pay you this discount difference.

    Do you think they would say "sure, have some money back after the purchase?"

    • nobro25 on 15/08/2025 - 12:39

      That's happened before. Someone went in and wanted a refund and purchased the item at the discounted price. So instead of the silly transactions they just gave them a refund.

  • drfuzzy on 15/08/2025 - 13:17

    You should at least provide details as to the type of item and the advertised price.

    You don't need to state the retailer.

    • runamuck on 15/08/2025 - 22:37

      What's wrong with stating the retailer?

  • hopper on 15/08/2025 - 16:02

    did you use the item?

  • drfuzzy on 15/08/2025 - 16:10
    +4

    I had something similar 15 years ago when I made a large purchase using a discount program offered to employees and their immediate family.

    I purchased using my brother's discount program and I find someone willing to honour the deal (about $5k discount).

    After the transaction I get an angry call wanting to modify the terms of the contract as head office had denied the discount/rebate as a brother does not meet the criteria for immediate family.

    I declined as we had already signed the contract.

    A few years later I returned to the same place and was quoted parts and labor for a repair and agreed upon a price verbally.

    When I collected I was charged a service fee and no parts. The service fee was inflated but I was happy as the overall cost was much lower than expected.

    I paid immediately and left.

    One or two years later I get a very angry phone call that I need to return immediately - that same day - and pay for the parts.

    I tell them to put the request in writing and I will consider it.

    I never hear from them again.

  • d-hunterz on 16/08/2025 - 16:19
    +10

    WTF…3 pages of comments and I still did not find the retailer.

    • belongsinforums on 16/08/2025 - 19:20
      +1

      Someone guessed somewhere like centrecom

      • smartazz104 on 16/08/2025 - 23:44

        Maybe it was Mwave and that’s why they were placed into administration…

  • Hydralyte on 16/08/2025 - 18:19
    -2

    If it's less than $100, I would ignore, if it's more than $100, then just ask for a refund but dont send them the item back until you get the money.

    If it can't be returned, tell them, you snooze you lose.

  • maverickjohn on 16/08/2025 - 20:25

    To be honest. They also know your address. From a safety perspective I'm not willing to compromise my family safety.. as who knows what lunatics are behind these chains.
    You can keep your item without any problems legally I feel. However if it was me I'd just ask for a refund and let them have the product or work a middle ground to make both parties happy.

    • Zapwap on 16/08/2025 - 21:50

      They also know your address

      They aren't bikies

      • maverickjohn on 17/08/2025 - 04:59
        +2

        This is true.. but they might know bikies

    • smartazz104 on 16/08/2025 - 23:44
      -1

      Yea I’m sure a business owner would risk their livelihood by pursuing a customer using violence.

      • maverickjohn on 17/08/2025 - 04:58
        +2

        They wouldn't be that direct if they were going to do something. I'm just saying that it would be a concern for me. You want to be carefree about it that's up to you. I'm not willing to put my family in that situation.

        • Daabido on 17/08/2025 - 10:00

          Friendly Jordies and … better not say.

  • life is suffering on 16/08/2025 - 22:17

    Mis fortune cookie 🥠

  • nomoneynoproblems on 17/08/2025 - 00:10

    I actually saw this deal posted on Ozbargain Premium. It was a great deal and discount, no wonder the retailer was pissed!

    • Daabido on 17/08/2025 - 10:01

      Wait until you taste OzBargain Ultra.
      Shut up!

  • YoursTruly on 17/08/2025 - 10:36
    -1

    Sounds like it might be EB games…

  • H3R34TH4C0MM3NTS on 17/08/2025 - 12:44
    +1

    If you haven't already are you able to provide some context to what this is , was Its $1 pencil case or a $4 Million Super yatch. in principle if you have paid the agreed price and they have delivered you the product , you should just tell them to GF, and publicly expose them.

  • Maths Debater on 17/08/2025 - 13:13

    Not sure why you won't disclose the product, retailer and how you found the code? It's not going to effect your situation.

  • Bugs Bunny on 17/08/2025 - 17:04
    +4

    OP not sharing details of product/price, retailer, or how code was obtained.

    Nothing to see here…

    • Jono05 on 17/08/2025 - 22:40
      +1

      Might be all BS and OP is just trolling…

  • JumpingUnicorns on 20/08/2025 - 14:32

    @fortunecookie need an update pls

    • fortunecookie on 20/08/2025 - 20:13
      -3

      I am currently disputing the retailer's claim. Maybe I will spill the beans in a new post in the foreseeable future.

      • elgrande on 22/08/2025 - 17:19
        +1

        Was it a heinz offer?

  • Dankur88 on 25/08/2025 - 05:24
    +3

    So disappointed after read through all the comment but no further info. Got up 5am sit in the loo expecting any good story to start of my day.. come on OP,spill the beans and let me sleep tonight.

    • elgrande on 27/08/2025 - 18:34

      The correct phrase for using Ozbargain on the toilet is tinkering.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join