I ordered some candy in bulk packaging.
It’s not essential. 
Amazon estimated that I’ll get it within 10 days. That’s not too bad considering how many people are ordering.
Normally I get prime items within 3 days. I’m not complaining. I’m just thankful that I don’t have to stand in line to get into Walmart.
No.
We all gotta eat a bite of the Shit Sandwich these days. Don’t Bitch. Just chew and swallow.
This is something we would take advantage of, but Canadian Prime does not include this as a benefit.
One would think that anyone who was contemplating the specific issue of whether Amazon had been in breach would consider reading the contract.
Yes, ordinarily, consumers don’t read the contracts, but you and I have seen enough of them to expect that a good lawyer won’t put “you have to pay his no matter what” into the contract but will put something to the effect that “any delivery promise will be inapplicable under certain circumstances.”
And you can label it a contract of adhesion, sure, but most consumer contract hold up in court. It takes a lot to prove unconscionability. “Circumstances might result in delays” is very unlikely to be unconscionable.
About the legal aspect, I think while Amazon may or may not be responsible for refunding, the PR issue seems more important.
I don’t know what to say except that language like that does not get you out of your contractual obligations generally.
Sure, if an item I ordered actually took three days instead of two, then I don’t get to sue Amazon. If an item is out of stock or the post office misplaces it, I cannot claim “But you said two days!!”
However, when they have wholesale said that they are abandoning their promise under the contract entirely, you cannot read the language so broadly as to allow them to fail to honor those obligations, otherwise the contract is wholly illusory, e.g. We will give you free two-day shipping!!!* (if we feel like it)
I mean, do you really think that language works? If I am a plumber can I put in a “no warranties” clause or “based on availability” and then when I don’t show up to your house claim that I was unavailable and I didn’t warranty my work, yet you still have to pay? But those clauses do work in the sense that some read them and give up a legal pursuit. Your interpretation is essentially a “you pay no matter what” clause.
I can think of many contract defenses Amazon might have given the pandemic, but all those defenses do is void that part of the contract, which is a two way street. They don’t have to perform, but I don’t have to pay, which is what I am asking for in this thread.
Again, I would construe that as sometimes individual items may not get there in two days due to circumstances unique to that one individual item. Sometimes. Not a wholesale repudiation of the obligation.
And no, I still haven’t read the contract, because I read enough legal shit during the week and have no interest in my off time of reading boring contract language, and also no disclaimer can disclaim a material obligation of the contract without a subsequent nonpayment on the part of the customer.
That was a material term of the agreement. If I am a plumber and you have paid extra for same day service, there is nothing in the fine print that I can put in which allows me not to show up on the same day yet you still pay the extra fee. Nothing at all. It doesn’t matter if my wife died in a house explosion. If I don’t show up, you get your money back.
If it’s part of the contract, then it informs the definitions of what your contractual obligations are.
Some car insurance companies like Amica are giving partial refunds for April and May since driving is way down.
I was sending something to a friend, and I accidentally used his old mailing address. It was completely my mistake, but when I told Amazon about it and asked if there was any solution, they voluntarily refunded me the money (about $11).
I never asked for a refund, but I took it, and re-ordered the same item. So, I’m quite pleased with their service at the moment.
I would recommend the OP contact an attorney if they are serious about getting real answers to this. It’s probably not something a layperson can just guess at.
Right, but as we noted, a contract cannot be so illusory that one party can get of out a material term and still require the other party to pay—no matter the language.
Yeah, I am very happy with Amazon. One of the best and most revolutionary companies out there. I’ve been a Prime member for years. I’m not disowning them or anything. I’m just saying that they owe me money.
My advice would be talk to Amazon Customer Service, tell them all of what you’re telling us, and see if they are willing to give you a credit to keep you happy. It sounds like you really want to be able to prove that they’re contractually obligated to do so (and though IANAL, it doesn’t sound like they are), but even if they aren’t, they may well be willing to give a make-good to a customer who complains.
The text of the agreement makes it clear that the shipping benefits apply when Amazon says they apply, by designating at checkout what is eligible. It doesn’t guarantee anywhere that they will be available for things that you want to buy. If they don’t offer the benefits at a level that you determine is useful to you, your option is to cancel the membership. That’s basically how capitalism works.
If anything, the fact that Amazon is coming out and stating publicly that they can’t do two-day shipping for most items should be an argument in their favor, not against them. If you’re a Prime customer, and that’s unacceptable to you, you can cancel your Prime subscription. If you continue your subscription despite that announcement, then you’re agreeing to the new situation.
Some customers? How should they decide?
The way I see it, when I pay for a store membership, I’m paying for an opportunity to take advantage of good deals they may have, but there is no guarantee that any specific deal will be available. If Costco stops carrying my favorite brand of something, I wouldn’t expect them to refund the rest of the year’s membership fee just for that reason.
Anyway, Amazon still is shipping Prime items by 2-day shipping, for free. They never promised that Prime items will arrive 2 days after you order it. Just 2 days after they ship it. And it’s your choice to order things they are prioritizing or not - if you choose to buy essential household goods locally, and only use Amazon for non-essential shopping, is that Amazon’s fault?
I accidently signed up for a one month trial of Prime in March (before the quarantines), Amazon automatically extended my trail till May 15th.
Unfortunately everything I order has a month shipping date, but it comes quicker.
You mean to counter the good PR they’re getting by prioritizing shipping emergency medical materials to first responders and hospitals?
I agree completely. Amazon is a popular political punching bag in the USA. They’d much rather take the hit from slower prime delivery. ‘Richie McRich had a doggie bowl made of solid gold delivered in 16 hours while the guy pulling 12 hour shifts in the ER had to wait 5 days for essential items.’ That isn’t exactly what they want to go viral on Twitter.
I’ve gotten quite a few of the digital discounts by ordering things that could wait. They can be combined on kindle books, not sure about other digital items.
No, the sentence was written to mean: Some of all of their Prime customers’ money. All Prime customers should get a partial refund because all Prime customers have been denied a benefit of the bargain.
And yes, (to you and other posters), Amazon only promised that things labeled Prime are eligible for the free two day shipping. I cannot complain that my favorite brand of canned olives is no longer Prime eligible (hypothetically…but I do like canned black olives…and they are out of them. 
)
But again, these terms are to be construed by their meaning at the time of the formation of the contract. Individual items may be affected, but wholesale changes to entire classes of items are simply not what a contracting party is allowed to do.
Would you agree with their decision if it was not an emergency situation? If you don’t, then I don’t see how it applies here at all.