The case is reminiscent of a similar error by Argos in 1999. In that case, televisions were offered on argos.co.uk for the sum of £2.99. The price should have been £299. The company refused to honour the orders placed and legal action was threatened – although it did not materialise.
The Kodak case differs from the Argos case in one significant respect. In the Argos case, the operation of the web site left it unclear as to whether or not a contract had been formed between the customer and the company. In the Kodak case, according to reports, the customers received confirmation of their orders and nothing on the web site would indicate that the contract had not been formed at this stage. However, Kodak denies that any contract was formed and has apologised to customers for "any inconvenience and disappointment caused".
When an item is offered for sale on a web site at a certain price, there is general consensus that it has the same effect in UK law as an item in a shop window being offered at a certain price. This is known as an "invitation to treat." At this stage, the item is not being "offered" to the customer. Rather, the customer is expected to make an offer at the check-out, which the shop will usually accept. If a price is incorrect, the shop can legally reject the customer's offer (although, if a shop does this too often, it may run into problems with Trading Standards).
In the Argos case, the £2.99 price tag on the televisions was probably an invitation to treat. Although the web site sales process was automated, the site did not "confirm" the customer's order. In the Kodak case, the order was confirmed. This confirmation is likely to be deemed "acceptance" in the legal sense, i.e. the point when the contract was formed, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the terms and conditions of the site. Accordingly, Kodak's case appears to be weak.