DYNAMIC PRICING SYSTEM FOR SHARING COST BETWEEN PURCHASERS

Editorial Note 2017204473 There are 11 pages of description only BACKGROUND

Crowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people. The monetary contributions from the various people may be unequal, however such a method still represents a way of cost sharing. The disadvantage of traditional crowd funding is that it is delayed-the service is not commissioned until enough contributors have pledged amounts such that the cost of the service is covered. If the cost of the service is not covered, the service is not provided. In some cases there is a significant delay between the first contributor making a pledge and the crowdfunding campaign meeting the target, or failing to meet the target and ending. As such, a crowdfunding campaign is not well-suited to those circumstances in which the contributor requires the service, unless the contributor pledges the entire remaining crowdfunding target. In that case there may be no cost sharing with other contributors.

Another approach to cost sharing is for a party with an interest in a service or product being made available to commission and pay for the service or product themselves and then the party gives the outcome away for free or a reduced price. In one such example, a vendor selling a property may procure, at their own expense, a building report and then supply the building report to prospective buyers for free. The prospective buyer has no say in the choice of building inspector that is providing the report, and the building report may be biased to the interests of the vendor.

There is little doubt that the cost of conducting due diligence on the purchase of a service or product can be expensive, and in some cases prohibitively so. For example, it is not uncommon to be desirous of a range of services or products when purchasing a property.

This is particularly the case for residential property where the buyer may be desirous of a building report, geotechnical report, pest report, legal services and so on.

The cost of due diligence is most acutely felt in those properties being offered for sale at auction, where there is little or no scope for the purchaser making their offer conditional upon the subsequent satisfactory completion of a building report, a geotechnical report, a pest report, legal services and so on. In such a case there can only be one successful purchaser on the auction day, and yet it is necessary for each individual party to conduct the due diligence prior to auction day. It is believed that this financial disincentive to conduct due diligence results in a reduction in the number of prospective purchasers on auction day and therefore a potential reduction in the purchase price of the property.

It is an object of the present invention to address the foregoing problems or at least to provide the public with a useful choice.

All references, including any patents or patent applications cited in this specification are hereby incorporated by reference. No admission is made that any reference constitutes prior art. The discussion of the references states what their authors assert, and the applicants reserve the right to challenge the accuracy and pertinency of the cited documents. It will be clearly understood that, although a number of prior art publications are referred to herein, this reference does not constitute an admission that any of these documents form part of the common general knowledge in the art, in New Zealand or in any other country.

Further aspects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the ensuing description which is given by way of example only.

In one aspect the invention provides a method of sharing the cost of a service or product between a plurality of parties, the method including the steps of:

a) providing a first party, the first party being desirous of a service or product;

b) providing a facilitator, the facilitator advertising to the first party the service or product to be provided;

c) the first party purchasing the service or product through the facilitator for a first price;

d) providing a second party, the second party being desirous of the service or product;

℮) the facilitator advertising to the second party the service or product to be provided;

f) the second party purchasing the service or product through the facilitator for a second price, wherein the second price is lower than the first price;

g) the first party receiving a refund of at least a part of the first price.

Advantageously the invention enables the cost of a service or product to be shared between a plurality of parties. Furthermore, the invention enables this sharing to occur in those circumstances where the parties are desirous of the service or product at different points in time.

Preferably the facilitator advertises the availability of a plurality of service or product providers to provide the service or product. In those cases it is preferable that the second party purchases the service or product from the facilitator wherein the service or product is provided by a single service or product provider.

Accordingly in a preferred embodiment the invention provides a method of sharing the cost of a service or product between a plurality of parties, the method including the steps of:

a) a first party being desirous of a service or product;

b) a facilitator advertising to the first party the service or product to be provided by at least one of a plurality of service or product providers;

c) the first party choosing one of the plurality of service or product providers to provide the service or product;

d) the first party purchasing the service or product through the facilitator for a first price;

℮) a second party being desirous of the service or product;

f) the facilitator advertising to the second party the service or product to be provided by the service or product provider which is chosen by the first party;

g) the second party purchasing the service or product advertised by the facilitator through the facilitator for a second price, wherein the second price is lower than the first price;

h) the first party receiving a refund of at least a part of the first price.

The method is particularly well suited to the provision of a service or product which is substantially inexhaustible. For example, many services are inexhaustible in that the same service can be provided to multiple parties, with the only resource constraint being the time of the service provider. Services that require mental effort or physical skill are particularly well-suited to the present invention. Examples of such services rely on the intellectual property of the service provider, such as legal services, accounting services, tradesperson skills, medical services, etc. The provision of services that enable a party to conduct due diligence in relation to a property are particularly well-suited.

By way of further example, many products are effectively inexhaustible. Particularly well-suited examples are those products that may be replicated without destruction of the initial product. A report that can be distributed electronically or in physical form to a plurality of parties is an example of an inexhaustible product. It may be thought of as a work product of a service. Another example of an inexhaustible product is a piece of software. The software may be made available to the first or second party by means of a software license.

In preferred embodiments, the service or product to be provided in the method of the invention is a report.

Figure 1 is a flow chart of the operational steps of the invention.

Figure 2 is a column graph of an example of the method of the invention showing the refund from the initial purchase price offered to each of the buyers except the last buyer. Such a model may be thought of as a “sinking lid” purchase price model.

In one aspect the invention provides a method of sharing the cost of a service or product between a plurality of parties, the method including the steps of:

a) a first party being desirous of a service or product;

b) a facilitator advertising to the first party the service or product to be provided;

c) the first party purchasing the service or product through the facilitator for a first price;

d) a second party being desirous of the service or product;

℮) the facilitator advertising to the second party the service or product to be provided;

f) the second party purchasing the service or product through the facilitator for a second price, wherein the second price is lower than the first price;

g) the first party receiving a refund of at least a part of the first price.

As used herein, the term “cost” typically refers to the financial cost of the provision of the service or product. The financial cost is typically a monetary cost. In preferred embodiments the cost is the price charged for a service or product.

As used herein, the term “sharing” may refer to an equal or unequal division of the cost of the service or product between the plurality of parties.

As used herein, the term “service” refers to an act that helps or aids a party desirous of the service. Examples of such services rely on the intellectual property of the service provider, such as legal services, accounting services, tradesperson skills, medical services, etc. The provision of services that enable a party to conduct due diligence in relation to a property are particularly well-suited, including the provision of building inspection services, geotechnical engineering services, pest inspection services and legal services.

As used herein, the term “product" refers to a tangible or intangible item capable of being conveyed from one location to another. While the product may be a natural product, it is typically produced by the labor of one or more individuals. Typically the product will be effectively inexhaustible. Particularly well-suited examples are those products that may be replicated without destruction of the initial product. A report that can be distributed electronically or in physical form to a plurality of parties is an example of an inexhaustible product. It may be thought of as a work product of a service. Another example of an inexhaustible product is a piece of software. The software may be made available to the first or second party by means of a software license. In preferred embodiments the product of the invention is a report capable of electronic or physical replication. The provision of products that enable a party to conduct due diligence in relation to a property are particularly well-suited, including the provision of a building inspection report, (geotechnical) engineering report, pest inspection report and legal report.

As used herein, the term “plurality” takes its standard meaning and refers to two or more parties.

As used herein, the term “party" refers to one or more individuals or entities that are united in a purpose. As appropriate herein, that purpose may be being desirous of a product or service. Typically the first party and the second party will not be in communication with each other. It is preferable that the first party and the second party will not be in communication with each other. In those instances where other parties are involved it is preferable that each of the parties are not in communication with each other. For example, in the scenario of a residential property proceeding to auction, it is typical for each of the prospective purchasers to not be in communication with each other. It may be the case that each of the prospective purchasers does not even know each other.

It will be appreciated that the invention is particularly advantageous to sharing the cost of the service or product with several or even a multitude of parties, such as 3, 4, 5 or more parties.

In the case of 3 parties: the third party will be desirous of the service or product; the facilitator will advertise to the third party the service or product to be provided; and the third party will purchase the service or product through the facilitator for a third price, wherein the third price is lower than the first price and the third price will be generally lower than the second price. Where the third price is lower than the second price, the first party will receive an additional refund and the second party will receive a refund.

In the case of 4 parties: the fourth party will be desirous of the service or product; the facilitator will advertise to the fourth party the service or product to be provided; and the fourth party will purchase the service or product through the facilitator for a fourth price, wherein the fourth price is lower than the first price and the fourth price will be generally lower than the second and/or third price. Where the fourth price is lower than the second and third price, the first and/or second party will receive an additional refund and the third party will receive a refund.

In the case of 5 parties: the fifth party will be desirous of the service or product; the facilitator will advertise to the fifth party the service or product to be provided; and the fifth party will purchase the service or product through the facilitator for a fifth price, wherein the fifth price is lower than the first price and the fifth price will be generally lower than the second, third and/or fourth price. Where the fifth price is lower than the second, third and fourth price, the first, second and/or third party will receive an additional refund and the fourth party will receive a refund.

This pattern of the facilitator advertising the service or product to several or even a multitude of parties can be continued ad inf initem. In those cases the distribution of the refund will be at the discretion of the facilitator, however in one preferred mode each party except the last party to purchase the service or product will receive a refund over the price at the time of their respective purchases.

As used herein, the term “facilitator” refers to an entity that assists the provision of a service or product to the first, second and any subsequent parties. The service or product may be provided by a separate party, referred to herein as the service or product provider.

Assistance may be provided by means of advertising, maintenance of a database of information and/or correspondence with the provider and/or parties. Preferably the facilitator will maintain an online portal through which the first, second and any subsequent parties may search a database for information, which will typically include the details of the service or product to be provided. In one example, the facilitator is a website that allows the first party to select and pay for the service or product the first party is desirous of.

As used herein, the term “advertising” will generally mean an offer for sale or rent, typically sale. The offer for sale or rent will be facilitated by the facilitator, even in those cases where the service or product is provided by a separate party.

As used herein, the term “purchasing” refers to the decision by the first party, second party, or any subsequent parties to pay for the service or product at the first price, second price, etc, as appropriate. The act of purchasing may involve the immediate transfer of funds or a delayed transfer of funds. The delayed transfer of funds may involve the use of a credit facility where an intermediary, such as a credit card company, places a “hold” (reserves) a sum equal to the first price, second price, etc. In those cases where a hold is placed using a credit facility, the refund in the method of the invention may represent a virtual refund in the sense that the final amount actually deducted from the party’s funds is less than the amount actually put on “hold”.

As used herein, the term “refund” refers to the return of at least part of the first price paid by the first party. The refund may occur on the same day that the first party pays the first price, but may also occur later than that, in some cases significantly later than that. In some embodiments the refund may be provided to the first party as soon as the second party confirms the purchase. In other embodiments, the refund is not provided until a specified end date. That end date may correspond with a particular event, such as the auction date for a residential property. Alternatively in those cases where the refund is only provided at the end date, the first party may have the option of nominating the end date in order to bringforward the refund payment.

It will be understood that the method of the invention is capable of continuing with several successive steps. In some embodiments, a third, or even fourth, or even fifth party may be involved. It will be appreciated that in those circumstances, the method provides for further refunds to be provided to the first party, although this is not seen as limiting. The refund may only be provided to the first party or a selection of the parties. In preferred embodiments, each party except the last party will receive a refund. In still preferred embodiments, the price paid by the first party will be no higher than the price paid by the second and any subsequent parties. In some cases the price paid by the first party may be lower than the price paid by the second party to incentivize the early adoption of the business model.

In some embodiments, the facilitator will advertise the price of the service or product to the second and any subsequent parties according to the number of previous buyers.

Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the method of the present invention allows for the provision of a service or product to the party desirous of the service or product at the time they require the service or product, while still enabling the sharing of the cost of that service or product between a plurality of parties that are desirous of the service or product. In this way the method of the invention provides the benefits of crowdfunding without the uncertainty or delay in the provision of the service or product.

The methods of the present invention may be implemented in many conceivable ways. For example, the methods of the present invention may be implemented without the use of computer hardware and/or software, but typically computer hardware and/or software will be used.

For a firmware and/or software (also known as a computer program) implementation, the techniques of the present disclosure may be implemented as instructions (for example, procedures, functions, and so on) that perform the functions described. It should be appreciated that the present disclosure is not described with reference to any particular programming languages, and that a variety of programming languages could be used to implement the present invention. The firmware and/or software codes may be stored in a memory, or embodied in any other processor readable medium, and executed by a processor or processors. The memory may be implemented within the processor or external to the processor.

In particular, it is envisaged that in exemplary embodiments methods described herein may be embodied in the graphical user interface (GUI) of a web portal to be accessed by any interested party, where the GUI interacts with existing control functions and routines to implement the present disclosure, typically in conjunction with a general purpose processor.

A general purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, for example, a combination of a digital signal processor (DSP) and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. The processors may function in conjunction with servers, whether cloud based or dedicated, and network connections as known in the art.

The steps of a method described in connection with the present disclosure may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by one or more processors, or in a combination of the two.

The various steps or acts in a method may be performed in the order shown, or may be performed in another order. Additionally, one or more method steps may be omitted or one or more method steps may be added to the methods. An additional step, block, or action may be added in the beginning, end, or intervening existing elements of the methods.

Further aspects of the present invention will become apparent from the ensuing description which is given by way of example only.

The invention may also be said broadly to consist in the parts, elements and features referred to or indicated in the specification of the application, individually or collectively, in any or all combinations of two or more of said parts, elements or features.

Aspects of the present invention have been described by way of example only and it should be appreciated that modifications and additions may be made thereto without departing from the scope thereof as defined in the appended claims.

The invention is particularly well-suited to retailing or wholesaling a service or product, such as on a website where people can get quotes for services, choose service or product provider(s) and order a service or product. The invention will now be described with reference to a specific example which is not intended to be seen as limiting. Reference to the cost of due diligence for a residential property is not seen as limiting.

In one example, a residential property is being offered for sale at auction on 30 May 2016.

As part of their approach to conducting due diligence on the property, a first party “A” would like a building inspection report to be prepared by a building inspector of their choice.

Party A uses the website of a facilitator (“AuctionReady”) to search for the residential property. The facilitator’s website indicates that no other party has purchased a building report through the facilitator and provides party A with a choice of three service and product providers to choose from.

Each provider offers a slightly different service and advertises slightly different prices. Party A recognizes that the service and product providers have offered a discount on their usual rates for choosing them through the facilitator’s website.

Party A chooses one of the service and product providers to provide her with a building inspection report. Party A pays $550 for the building inspection report on 1 May 2016 and receives the report on 5 May 2016. If Party A had chosen the building inspector without the involvement of the facilitator, the inspector would have charged $600.

A second party “B” is also interested in the residential property for sale at auction on 30 May 2016 and would also like to obtain a building inspection report.

Party Β uses the website of a facilitator (“AuctionReady”) to search for the residential property. The facilitator’s website indicates that another party has already purchased a building report through the facilitator and provides party Β with the option of buying the same building inspector’s report at the discounted price of $440.

Party Β pays $440 for the building inspection report on 6 May 2016 and receives the report on 6 May 2016.

A third party “C” is also interested in the residential property for sale at auction on 30 May 2016 and would also like to obtain a building inspection report.

Party C uses the website of a facilitator (“AuctionReady”) to search for the residential property. The facilitator’s website indicates that another party has already purchased a building report through the facilitator and provides party C with the option of buying the same building inspector’s report at the discounted price of $350.

Party C pays $350 for the building inspection report on 10 May 2016 and receives the report on 10 May 2016.

A fourth party “D” is also interested in the residential property for sale at auction on 30 May 2016 and would also like to obtain a building inspection report.

Party D uses the website of a facilitator (“AuctionReady”) to search for the residential property. The facilitator’s website indicates that another party has already purchased a building report through the facilitator and provides party D with the option of buying the same building inspector’s report at the discounted price of $310.

Party D pays $310 for the building inspection report on 15 May 2016 and receives the report on 15 May 2016.

A fifth party “E” is also interested in the residential property for sale at auction on 30 May 2016 and would also like to obtain a building inspection report.

Party Ε uses the website of a facilitator (“AuctionReady”) to search for the residential property. The facilitator’s website indicates that another party has already purchased a building report through the facilitator and provides party Ε with the option of buying the same building inspector’s report at the discounted price of $300.

Party Ε pays $300 for the building inspection report on 20 May 2016 and receives the report on 20 May 2016.

On the auction day, the facilitator removes the advertisement of the building inspector’s report and calculates the refunds owing to each party. The refunds are as follows: Party A $250; Party Β $140; Party C $50; Party D $10.

In such a scenario, each party has paid less than the normal asking price of $600 of the building inspector. The total paid by all parties is $1950 which can be distributed between the refunds ($450), the facilitator and the building inspector. This total earning can be used to pay the building inspector for the provision of the building inspection report, as well as any credit card fees which may have accumulated, and other overheads, and produce a profit for the facilitator.

Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that by sharing the cost of the building inspection report, the cost of due diligence to any one interested party is reduced while at the same time encouraging more educated competition at the auction which may, or may not be, to the benefit of the vendor. For example, where the building inspection report identifies a sound house, the competition is likely to raise the sale price. Where the building inspection report identifies problems with the house, it will discourage excessive bidding at the auction. In this way there is a significant benefit to society since poor quality houses will only be sold for the price they are worth, and vendors that have maintained their house well will achieve a higher sale price.

Editorial Note 2017204473 There are 2 pages of claims