On 23 November 2018, a Rotterdam subdistrict court ruled that a shopkeeper from De Bijenkorf would have to return the Cartier chain bought at a price of EUR 402 to the Bijenkorf or to pay a compensation of EUR 39,798 to the Bijenkorf. The actual price of the chain was not EUR 402 (as stated in the webshop), but EUR 40,200.
The subdistrict court judged it plausible that the Bijenkorf did not have the will to sell the chain for a price of EUR 402. This led to the conclusion that no purchase agreement was concluded between the Bijenkorf and the online shopper. In addition, the Subdistrict Court ruled that the online shopper could be expected to have investigated the correctness of the price of the chain.
The ruling of the Rotterdam subdistrict court judge is in particular a nice illustration of the doctrine of justified trust that is relevant to the conclusion of agreements.
However, the statement is also interesting from a privacy perspective. De Bijenkorf offered during the procedure to submit an investigation into the internet behavior of the online shopper.
This offer made the Bijenkorf to refute the defense of the online shopper that she justifiedly could rely on the fact that the chain cost EUR 402 and so a valid purchase agreement had been concluded.
According to De Bijenkorf, research into the internet behavior of the online shopper revealed that they had searched the internet more often for Cartier products and other luxury products of the same price category. The Bijenkorf wanted to show that the online shopper was aware of the actual prices of Cartier products and therefore knew that the price at which the Cartier chain was offered in the Bijenkorf webshop could not be correct.
The subdistrict court does not go further on this offer. The subdistrict court ruled that on the basis of other circumstances raised by the Bijenkorf, it was already sufficiently established that the online shopper could not legitimately rely on the chain being offered for sale by the Bijenkorf for a price of EUR 402.
It is a pity that the offer of the Bijenkorf is not discussed further. It would have been interesting to see whether the subdistrict court judge would have checked whether the Bijenkorf could monitor the internet behavior of the online shopper (by means of cookies) on the grounds of the General Data Protection Regulation and the applicable cookie rules, and whether the Bijenkorf could then use the collected data. use in the present proceedings to support its position.