I could be varying degrees of all kinds of wrong here – contract law isn’t a speciality of mine, (and with that disclaimer in mind) but …
… Following [primarily] the Kodak case back along, there was some extended debate at which point in a transaction a contract is made, and as such, a seller is bound to supply at the price offered. It was something along the lines of:
#. The seller offers you ‘something’ at a price – (advertised on a website).
#2. You agree – (by buying it).
#3. The seller agrees … and this was where it kicks. From memory 🙄 if the form of words used by the website acknowledges you have placed an order, the seller is not bound to supply the goods (at the price you have agreed). Kodak (and others) had wording at this stage which perhaps may have [implicitly] constituted an ‘agreement’ to supply at the price offered.
Any shopping-cart software worth it’s salt these days will make sure that the wording in each stage does not impose such an implied contract upon the seller, so good luck, but if ’twas me, I’d be expecting an e-mail saying thanks, but no thanks.