Customer's Breach of Contract Claim Fails in Guaranteed Delivery Dispute: Amazon
Plaintiff Tonny Storey’s fraud class action complaint against Amazon for failing to deliver products by a promised date doesn't state a claim for breach of contract, said Amazon’s Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01529) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Storey sued Amazon Sept. 15 in State of Washington Superior Court for King County saying that despite the e-commerce company’s promise of “Guaranteed Delivery,” it sometimes fails to deliver products by the date or time promised (see 2310050042). Amazon removed the case to the federal court Oct. 4.
Storey, a resident of Westfield, Indiana, bought a Stash Tea sampler on Amazon March 27 for $19.99, said the complaint. He chose to pay an extra $2.99 for “rush shipping” to receive the product between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. the following day, the complaint said. An Amazon tracking report later that evening said a “carrier delay has occurred," and the item wasn’t delivered until 12:57 p.m., it said.
The complaint is based on a reading of a contract that “at every turn, says the opposite of what Storey alleges it does,” said Amazon’s motion. Storey alleges the retailer should have automatically refunded him the $2.99 he paid for “guaranteed” overnight shipping on an order “even though he received the order overnight because he would have preferred to receive it a few hours earlier,” it said.
The guarantee “does not apply to Storey’s transaction at all,” because contract terms specify that the “'guarantee' only extends to orders where an express offer of a ‘guaranteed’ delivery date is displayed at the time of checkout,” which did not happen with Storey's purchase, said the motion. For transactions covered by a delivery guarantee, the contract states 19 times that it extends only to delivery on the promised date, it said. Since Storey admits he received his order on the requested date, “there is no breach under the contract he seeks to enforce.”
Even if the guarantee applied and was breached, neither of which is the case, said the motion, Amazon’s contract states that customers should contact customer service to request a refund of delivery fees. Storey’s “failure to do so forecloses his claim,” it said. The plaintiff’s remaining claims for violation of the Washington Consumer Protect Act and unjust enrichment are “tag-along claims that fail along with his deficient contract claim,” it said.
“It is settled law that there is nothing unfair or deceptive about a defendant adhering to the stated terms of a consumer contract,” said Amazon’s motion. Storey’s unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law “because the parties’ rights and duties are covered by an existing contract,” it said. “This contract was never breached.”