fuck you Target!
mattchu
We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might & Magic
5",
which you ordered from the
Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
In accordance with our posted policies on pricing, we are unable to
offer
this item for the incorrectly posted
price. Therefore, we have cancelled your order for this item.
At any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the
items on
the Tar...@Amazon.com store may be
mispriced. We do, however, verify prices as part of our shipping
procedures. If we discover that an item's correct
price is higher than the stated price on Tar...@Amazon.com, we will, at
our
discretion, either contact you for
instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of
such
cancellation. This policy is posted in
the Help section and is accessible through numerous other areas of our
web
site.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
We value your business and hope that you will give us a chance to serve
you
again in the future.
Sincerely,
Customer Service Department
Tar...@Amazon.com
Please note: this e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that
cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do
not reply to this message.
--
Best Regards, mattchu
np:
Bateau
That's a law which was designed for real life stores though.
chainbreaker
> Greetings from Tar...@Amazon.com,
>
> We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might & Magic
> 5",
> which you ordered from the
> Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
I don't know if this "Target" is associated in any way with the US Target
department store chain, but if it is, it's not surprising, because the
Target stores, at least in my area, used to be notorious for various
bait-and-switch techniques.
This sounds exactly like what they'd do in one of their brick and
mortars--advertise something at a price and then not have it at all, or only
have a "limited number" of items for sale at that price, which would of
course all be sold out by the time you got there. Another thing they'd do
instore is put something like say a crapload of a company's high end brand
of recording tapes beside one row of the company's bargain brand, then very
prominently display the bargain brand's price and the high end brand's
price, in comparison, with microscopic lettering.
I seem to recall these type practices becoming so rampant they were at least
threatened with legal action, and Target might not do this sort of stuff any
more, at least not so much, but seeing the post sure brought back some
memories, especially of my last visit about 20 years ago when I left
probably what amounted to a couple of hundred dollars worth of unpaid-for
merchandise laying on a checkout counter. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Jonah Falcon
adsci
jwb
news:d81ss1t3kjlm1prc5...@4ax.com...
> They might just be obliged to sell it to you for the advertised price.
> That's a law which was designed for real life stores though.
wrong.
jwb
news:BIWdnZmzoO_...@comcast.com...
> mattchu wrote:
>> Greetings from Tar...@Amazon.com,
>>
>> We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might & Magic
>> 5",
>> which you ordered from the
>> Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>
> I don't know if this "Target" is associated in any way with the US Target
> department store chain, but if it is, it's not surprising, because the
> Target stores, at least in my area, used to be notorious for various
> bait-and-switch techniques.
This is not "bait and switch". This is a simple mistake that was corrected.
There's a big difference.
Quaestor
They are still stuck with selling at the advertised price to anyone who
accepted the deal when the price was advertised.
--
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>which you ordered from the
>Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
Here in the UK, I think they're obliged to sell it for the advertised
price.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Art Weingardner
what part is wrong? and can you point us someplace to back it up?
adsci
jwb wrote:
>
> This is not "bait and switch". This is a simple mistake that was corrected.
> There's a big difference.
>
how can you see the differ between a simple mistake and a fraud? frauds
look usually as "simple mistakes" to the customer.
adsci
if this is really wrong and it is allowed to advertise at entirely made
up prices just to tell the customer the real price when he is actually
trying to do the purchase i want to know in which country i can do that.
i have some nice ideas to make money then ;)
seriously: if its just a mistake and no bait-and-switch it is eventually
no illegal act. but how can you see the difference between both? to the
customer both cases do look the same.
m
Ceowulf
>> Greetings from Tar...@Amazon.com,
>>
>> We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might & Magic
>> 5",
>> which you ordered from the
>> Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>
> I don't know if this "Target" is associated in any way with the US Target
> department store chain, but if it is, it's not surprising, because the
> Target stores, at least in my area, used to be notorious for various
> bait-and-switch techniques.
Same Target here in Australia too, though they seem to have an ok rep here.
Ceo-
jwb
news:33nts199s7mr7ih4i...@4ax.com...
It's pretty hard to "prove" that something like this doesn't exist. Instead,
the OP can point us to the law.
jwb
news:43cefd7c$1...@news.arcor-ip.de...
You can't see the difference.
It's pretty safe to assume it's a mistake unless it's common. Or an obvious
"we *knew* there would be none in stock". That's probably not the case -
what probably happened is that the person responsible for assigning the
price to the SKU number of the item screwed up, and read the price for the
strat guide or whatnot. And then someone else noticed there were more
preorders than they expected and said "hmmm" and discovered the error.
Advertising a wrong price, or running out of an item, are honest mistakes.
Getting in 3 units and then placing an ad anyway just to get traffic...
that's wrong. Mistakes are usually the cause of things like this. But people
will bitch and cry fraud anyway. That's why I got out of retail - customers
are a real pain in the ass, and are almost always wrong.
jwb
news:11stk2g...@news.supernews.com...
show me a law that states this.
You won't find one.
jwb
I answered your other post on this, but you are right - you can't tell the
difference in many instances. So unless Target has an "unusually large"
history of this behavior, it's probably safe to assume it's a mistake.
Alan Bernardo
"mattchu" <mattchu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137564035.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I like the your language: it's quite becoming. I also like the fact that
all you did was copy-paste an email, without any real comment, like someone
putting up a some sign shape on the road without markings. Given all that,
it's only a $30 difference. If you're that angry, don't buy the game,
waiting instead until the price drops. And you could go a little further
and not purchase from Target again. I'll bet if you sent a letter to
Target, voicing your displeasure and how you don't plan on shopping at
Target and you've told your friends to do the same, Target might reconsider.
But I doubt you'll read this post or any post connected to your subject-only
post. You appear to be the type of person who runs by once and never
returns.
Alanb
Quaestor
>>They are still stuck with selling at the advertised price to anyone who
>>accepted the deal when the price was advertised.
>>
>>
>
>show me a law that states this.
>
>You won't find one.
>
There are plenty. But for you they don't exist, because you don't want
them to. Fortunately, once I drop you in the bitbucket, you don't exist
for me. See the difference? My ignoring you is for real.
Quaestor
One example is the shill, someone who advocates for another as if they
are a disinterested 3rd party, but in fact are paid by the company.
Quaestor
Target basically is vying with kmart to see who can be the sleaziest. I
last went into either more than 10 years ago, and if they were the last
store on earth and I had to have something from them to survive I would
die boycotting them.
Avilan
companies to sell to the advertised price.
Most European countries have that law; including my own, Sweden. The
law is obviously there to prevent "Bait and Switch" behavior.
/A
mattchu
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
I'm putting on my sad face now!
That's an interesting article in that it implies there is precedent for
forcing companies to honor their advertised price if there was no items
ever sold at that price (whether limited quantity, under special
conditions, etc.). Hmm.
mattchu
jwb wrote:
> This is not "bait and switch". This is a simple mistake that was corrected.
> There's a big difference.
That's how it is being presented. Sighs abound from my vicinity!
Stephen
"jwb" <jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:SWDzf.1776$yE4...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
The Latest consumer protection law here in California is AB 1721, It
requires that the lowest posted or advertised price must be honored. It is
an update to cover scanners. It does not cover internet sales.
Stephen
jwb
> jwb wrote:
>
>>>They are still stuck with selling at the advertised price to anyone who
>>>accepted the deal when the price was advertised.
>>>
>>
>>show me a law that states this.
>>
>>You won't find one.
>>
>
> There are plenty. But for you they don't exist, because you don't want
> them to. Fortunately, once I drop you in the bitbucket, you don't exist
> for me. See the difference? My ignoring you is for real.
I didn't think you'd find one.
jwb
>
> jwb wrote:
>> This is not "bait and switch". This is a simple mistake that was
>> corrected.
>> There's a big difference.
>
> That's how it is being presented. Sighs abound from my vicinity!
It's too bad, too. Would have been a nice deal.
jwb
news:ytHzf.13024$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
so, you're saying if a newspaper mistakenly screws up a car dealer's ad, and
has cars for a dollar, the dealer must honor it. Or a clerk screws up and
has a game for half of what it would sell for. Or, say some kids put
different prices on the used cars overnight... the dealer would *have* to
sell it? Or some customer puts a different price on an expensive item... the
store would *have* to sell it?
No way, no how. Post a link to the law.
Avilan
jwb skrev:
First example, the car dealer... No, because the car dealer can point
to the original and say "look, newspaper screwed up!".
The rest... We are talking about the Avertised price, so depending on
the situation, yes.
If the store screws up and puts a too low price, they have to sell it
to that price. It's up to the store to keep track of their own ads.
/A
Gerry Quinn
stefans...@gmail.com says...
> First example, the car dealer... No, because the car dealer can point
> to the original and say "look, newspaper screwed up!".
> The rest... We are talking about the Avertised price, so depending on
> the situation, yes.
> If the store screws up and puts a too low price, they have to sell it
> to that price. It's up to the store to keep track of their own ads.
You may or may not have passed a half-witted law in California.
In the real world, an advertisement is an 'invitation to treat'. It
does not oblige you to sell at that price, any more than a rash promise
on usenet obliges you to honour it.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
stefans...@gmail.com says...
And for that reason, it will not apply to accidental mis-posted prices,
unless your legislators are complete morons.
- Gerry Quinn
Quaestor
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Sales
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm
> § 2-204. Formation in General.
>
> (1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient
> to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes
> the existence of such a contract.
>
So ordering by internet makes a binding contract of sale.
> § 2-206. Offer and Acceptance in Formation of Contract.
>
> (1) Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or
> circumstances
>
> (a) an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting
> acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the
> circumstances;
>
So ordering by internet makes a binding contract of sale.
> § 2-301. General Obligations of Parties.
>
> The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of
> the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract
>
So once the sale is completed, the cc charged, the seller must deliver.
> § 2-511. Tender of Payment by Buyer; Payment by Check.
>
> (1) Unless otherwise agreed tender of payment is a condition to the
> seller's duty to tender and complete any delivery.
>
> (2) Tender of payment is sufficient when made by any means or in any
> manner current in the ordinary course of business unless the seller
> demands payment in legal tender and gives any extension of time
> reasonably necessary to procure it.
>
So once paid by CC, the seller must deliver the goods.
What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
by paying the specified price.
The argument that the unusual low price was due to a typo is a thin
excuse, the sort that bait-and-switch and other scammers have always
used. They bring you in with such a low low price, then try to get away
with saying it was a mistake, but still it amounted to rather effective
advertising, and likely some sales. Therefore the idea that they should
be excused on such grounds must be rejected.
Avilan
Gerry Quinn skrev:
Of course it does, since the company in question should and is(!) held
responsible for it's owns actions.
If you promise to sell something to a certain price, and the customer
call you on it, you have the legal obligation to sell it to that price.
It is even more so in the situation of the OP: He and the store
effectively signed a contract (he did get a print out receip with the
"wrong" price, which is as legally binding as a contract at least in
most countries. Before you object, the receip is legally binding for
tax reasons etc even in the US, so it should be legal proof of the
purchase period).
Avilan
Gerry Quinn skrev:
Yes it does. This is why most SALE!-ads tend to have fine print stating
"only valid until stock sold out" or something to that effect so that
the store won't be forced to order a product that is sold out just so
you can buy it to a lower price.
Besides if ads are just "invitaions to a treat" as you said, it means
that no companies ever has to stick to what they say in the ads, and I
assume even you would consider that wrong. Or would you accept a sudden
double price at the check-out for your Bud light and Goldfish crackers;
afterall the price on the shelf is just "an invitation", and is as
legally binding as a rash promise on usenet according to you.
/A
Jim Vieira
this whole "bargain" was first discovered and posted about
a couple months back or whatever.. Everyone involved was
saying "it's too good to be true" and "I wonder if they'll honor
the price" and stuff. It was obvious that everyone *knew* it
was a mistake and tried to capitalize on it..
And now, people are bending over backwards to make it out
to be something illegal or immoral.. or something they should be
compensated for somehow.
YOU ALL KNEW IT WAS A MISTAKE TO BEGIN WITH.
WTF?
Jonah Falcon
I did. In the BBB. "Misleading advertising". On the complaint form.
Jonah Falcon
"Jim Vieira" <Whipl...@wiDOT.rrDOT.com> wrote in message
news:_PMzf.80248$Dk.7...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
(cough) There are pre-order sales to entice interest in products. WTF are
YOU talking about?
From CelestialHeavens:
"Yes, it was too good to be true. Yet, we can wonder why it took them
several weeks (and probably thousands of orders) to notice the error. "
Kevin O'Donovan
"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:j5kts19tqm8asusma...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jan 2006 22:00:35 -0800, "mattchu" <mattchu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>which you ordered from the
>>Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>
> price.
>
To be honest, I think that isn't the case. I remember various articles and
TV shows which have stated that this is an incorrect, though common,
misconception in the UK. Supposedly if a shop underpriced an item on the
shelves they would not be bound to sell it at this price. When you presented
it at the counter they could tell you it was a mistake, and offer to sell it
to you at the proper price. If you didn't want to pay the higher price they
could just decline to sell it to you - there's no obligation for a store to
sell a customer any of its stock. On the other hand, apparently a lot of
supermarkets and other high profile stores will honour the incorrect price
just for good customer relations - if you've got a bargain you're more
likely to come back, and the money lost to them will disappear in the noise
of theft\breakages\etc across the chain.
Not sure if a pre-order would be treated differently though - in that case
would the pre-order constitute some form of contract to sell at the stated
price?
Kev
Shawn Wilson
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e398e08b...@news1.eircom.net...
> You may or may not have passed a half-witted law in California.
>
> In the real world, an advertisement is an 'invitation to treat'. It
> does not oblige you to sell at that price, any more than a rash promise
> on usenet obliges you to honour it.
Well, you're exactly wrong. In Illinois at least retailers are required by
law to honor an advertised price. I know because I benefited from that
once.
Advertising law is a little (lot) too turgid to wade through to hunt down
statutes.
jwb
news:1137670701....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> jwb skrev:
>
>>
>> so, you're saying if a newspaper mistakenly screws up a car dealer's ad,
>> and
>> has cars for a dollar, the dealer must honor it. Or a clerk screws up and
>> has a game for half of what it would sell for. Or, say some kids put
>> different prices on the used cars overnight... the dealer would *have* to
>> sell it? Or some customer puts a different price on an expensive item...
>> the
>> store would *have* to sell it?
>>
>> No way, no how. Post a link to the law.
>
> First example, the car dealer... No, because the car dealer can point
> to the original and say "look, newspaper screwed up!".
> The rest... We are talking about the Avertised price, so depending on
> the situation, yes.
> If the store screws up and puts a too low price, they have to sell it
> to that price. It's up to the store to keep track of their own ads.
I would still love for someone to post an actual law that states this.
Mr. Limpet
news:w1Nzf.2548$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Wouldn't accepting a vendor's terms also count as a contract?
Avilan
Kevin O'Donovan skrev:
Ah, enter the world of fine print:
If the ad (for example) states somewhere that "above prices might be
incorrect" (or something to that effect), or "please be aware that
sudden price changes might occur" etc... they are in the clear.
The common practice in cases as the one Kevin describes above here in
Sweden is to sell according to the price tag (shelf price! Not price
tag on individual item since that might be switched by the customer!)
if the price differs between the shelf and the sheckout computer. Of
course then they quickly either change the price in their computers or
on the shelf depending on what is correct.
/A
jwb
news:w1Nzf.2548$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
The BBB is an independent, for-profit agency that has no legal power
whatsoever.
By the way, "misleading advertising" and a clerk making a mistake are two
completely different things. That's why, after all this talk, there is
nobody that can produce the actual law that forces a retailer to sell
something for a marked or advertised price.
Avilan
jwb skrev:
>
> The BBB is an independent, for-profit agency that has no legal power
> whatsoever.
>
> By the way, "misleading advertising" and a clerk making a mistake are two
> completely different things. That's why, after all this talk, there is
> nobody that can produce the actual law that forces a retailer to sell
> something for a marked or advertised price.
And since we WERE, in fact, talking about misleading advertising, not a
Clerk's mistake (which I fail to see being relevent in this case at
all, since it either results in you getting a product cheaper than
intended in what you probably won't tell the clerk OR you pay too much,
check the receip and goes back and gets a refund. It has nothing to do
with the OP's situation nor does it have any real relevance to this
thread at all since it deals with mistakes in Ads, not the
In-store-clerks being too tired or stressed to do their job right,)
A
chainbreaker
> "chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:BIWdnZmzoO_...@comcast.com...
>> mattchu wrote:
>>> Greetings from Tar...@Amazon.com,
>>>
>>> We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might &
>>> Magic 5",
>>> Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>>
>> Target department store chain, but if it is, it's not surprising,
>> because the Target stores, at least in my area, used to be notorious
>> for various bait-and-switch techniques.
>
> corrected. There's a big difference.
I know. I was simply pointing out that I know Target has a history of shady
marketing metchods, including "bait-and-switch". It'd be sort of difficult
to get b&s to work effectively online anyway, although I suppose it possibly
could.
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
It's been at least 20 years since I left a buggy full of baby supplies
laying half-checked out on the store counter. I don't know that I'd
actually *die* boycotting them, but they'd definitely be the last place I
checked *before* dying. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Gerry Quinn
stefans...@gmail.com says...
> Gerry Quinn skrev:
> > In article <1137654443....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > stefans...@gmail.com says...
> > > I would be very very surprised if there was not a law in the US forcing
> > > companies to sell to the advertised price.
> > > Most European countries have that law; including my own, Sweden. The
> > > law is obviously there to prevent "Bait and Switch" behavior.
> >
> > And for that reason, it will not apply to accidental mis-posted prices,
> > unless your legislators are complete morons.
> Of course it does, since the company in question should and is(!) held
> responsible for it's owns actions.
People are held reponsible for their own actions. But everyone knows
errors and accidents occur.
> If you promise to sell something to a certain price, and the customer
> call you on it, you have the legal obligation to sell it to that price.
If you post here that you will sell your car for $10, and I call you on
it, you will be under no obligation to sell it to me, for that price or
any other.
Even thought you are responsible for your actions.
> It is even more so in the situation of the OP: He and the store
> effectively signed a contract (he did get a print out receip with the
> "wrong" price, which is as legally binding as a contract at least in
> most countries. Before you object, the receip is legally binding for
> tax reasons etc even in the US, so it should be legal proof of the
> purchase period).
This may influence the situation - I did not realise that he was
billed. I'm not sure it would universally apply anyway.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> > § 2-204. Formation in General.
> >
> > (1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient
> > to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes
> > the existence of such a contract.
>
> So ordering by internet makes a binding contract of sale.
So ordering by internet is the same as ordering any other way.
All your arguments are just attempts to claim that something is in the
law "a sale once initiated is utterly irrevocable whatever the
circumstances, even if it was the result of an error", which is not in
the law.
- Gerry Quinn
jwb
>
> jwb skrev:
>
>
>>
>> The BBB is an independent, for-profit agency that has no legal power
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> By the way, "misleading advertising" and a clerk making a mistake are two
>> completely different things. That's why, after all this talk, there is
>> nobody that can produce the actual law that forces a retailer to sell
>> something for a marked or advertised price.
>
> And since we WERE, in fact, talking about misleading advertising, not a
> Clerk's mistake
How can you possibly know that??
Knight37
Quaestor wrote:
> > (1) Unless otherwise agreed tender of payment is a condition to the
> > seller's duty to tender and complete any delivery.
> >
> > (2) Tender of payment is sufficient when made by any means or in any
> > manner current in the ordinary course of business unless the seller
> > demands payment in legal tender and gives any extension of time
> > reasonably necessary to procure it.
>
> So once paid by CC, the seller must deliver the goods.
Target didn't charge the credit cards. They took a pre-order, they
didn't take any money. If they had charged the credit card, I would
know, because it would show up on my electronic statement online as a
charge and then later as a refund.
> What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
> price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
> offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
> available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
> by paying the specified price.
But buyers had not payed yet.
> The argument that the unusual low price was due to a typo is a thin
> excuse, the sort that bait-and-switch and other scammers have always
> used. They bring you in with such a low low price, then try to get away
> with saying it was a mistake, but still it amounted to rather effective
> advertising, and likely some sales. Therefore the idea that they should
> be excused on such grounds must be rejected.
Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better lawyers
than you, so lots of luck.
Knight37
Marcel Beaudoin
@news.supernews.com:
> What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
> price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
> offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
> available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
> by paying the specified price.
Note that Best Buy has the following in their terms and conditions, I
imagine most other sites would use the same argument.
*****
The advertisements on the Web Site are invitations for purchase orders,
and are not offers to sell. Your properly completed and delivered order
form constitutes your offer to purchase the goods or services referenced
in your order. Your order shall be deemed to be accepted only if and when
Best Buy sends both an order acceptance and shipment notice email to your
email address. The order acceptance and shipment notice email constitutes
Best Buy's acceptance of your order.
*****
So what they are saying is that they haven't actually accepted your offer
to sell until they have accepted your offer (not received it) and have
shipped the product in question to you.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
Shawn Wilson
"Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137685131.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
>> price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
>> offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
>> available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
>> by paying the specified price.
>
> But buyers had not payed yet.
Doesn't matter.
California law-
CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1770
1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
...
(9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
advertised.
>> The argument that the unusual low price was due to a typo is a thin
>> excuse, the sort that bait-and-switch and other scammers have always
>> used. They bring you in with such a low low price, then try to get away
>> with saying it was a mistake, but still it amounted to rather effective
>> advertising, and likely some sales. Therefore the idea that they should
>> be excused on such grounds must be rejected.
>
> Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better lawyers
> than you, so lots of luck.
Good lawyers still can't change the letter of the law.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:HIOzf.12017$sA3.2740@fed1read02:
>
> "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137685131.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a
>>> given price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long
>>> as the offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract
>>> (ie: when available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers
>>> made the contract by paying the specified price.
>>
>> But buyers had not payed yet.
>
>
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> California law-
>
> CALIFORNIA CODES
> CIVIL CODE
> SECTION 1770
>
> 1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
> deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
> transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
> of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
>
> ...
>
> (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
> advertised.
But then you have to prove that they put the wrong price up on purpose..
Making a typo in a price of something is not "Advertising goods or
services with intent not to sell them as advertised." How often have you
gone into a store and seen flyers stating that Article XXXX, which was
advertised at $19.99 should have been priced at $22.99 or something like
that. If you think about it, it is quite common.
>>> The argument that the unusual low price was due to a typo is a thin
>>> excuse, the sort that bait-and-switch and other scammers have always
>>> used. They bring you in with such a low low price, then try to get
>>> away with saying it was a mistake, but still it amounted to rather
>>> effective advertising, and likely some sales. Therefore the idea
>>> that they should be excused on such grounds must be rejected.
>>
>> Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better
>> lawyers than you, so lots of luck.
>
> Good lawyers still can't change the letter of the law.
But the letter of the law above deals with the intent of the wrong price.
In that case, the quality of the lawyers has a very big effect.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
knight37
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Knight37" <knig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137685131.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
> >> price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
> >> offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
> >> available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
> >> by paying the specified price.
> >
> > But buyers had not payed yet.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> CIVIL CODE
> SECTION 1770
> advertised.
Ok so now you've got to prove their intent.
And BTW, California law will not apply to me and a whole lot of other
buyers.
> > Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better lawyers
> > than you, so lots of luck.
>
> Good lawyers still can't change the letter of the law.
Good lawyers don't need to. It's how the law is interpreted which is
what gets changed. Frequently.
I can guarantee you that NOTHING will get done about this. Target will
go on their merry way, no one is going to waste their energy trying to
sue Target over a measly $30, and this same thing WILL happen again at
some point.
I'm not happy about it, but lets get fucking realistic.
Knight37
Shawn Wilson
"Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns975070E4D51C4...@130.133.1.4...
>> California law-
>>
>> CALIFORNIA CODES
>> CIVIL CODE
>> SECTION 1770
>>
>> 1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
>> deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
>> transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
>> of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
>> advertised.
>
> But then you have to prove that they put the wrong price up on purpose..
No, they would have to prove the mistake. That they don't honor the offer
makes the prima facia case that they didn't intend to.
> Making a typo in a price of something is not "Advertising goods or
> services with intent not to sell them as advertised."
They have to prove the typo. You don't have to prove it wasn't. Negatives
can't be proven.
> How often have you
> gone into a store and seen flyers stating that Article XXXX, which was
> advertised at $19.99 should have been priced at $22.99 or something like
> that. If you think about it, it is quite common.
That would be a typo and they'll have proof of that.
>>> Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better
>>> lawyers than you, so lots of luck.
>>
>> Good lawyers still can't change the letter of the law.
>
> But the letter of the law above deals with the intent of the wrong price.
> In that case, the quality of the lawyers has a very big effect.
Either Target has proof it was a typo, or they don't.
Marcel Beaudoin
> "Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns975070E4D51C4...@130.133.1.4...
>
>>> California law-
>>>
>>> CALIFORNIA CODES
>>> CIVIL CODE
>>> SECTION 1770
>>>
>>> 1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
>>> deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
>>> transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
>>> of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
>>> advertised.
>>
>> But then you have to prove that they put the wrong price up on
>> purpose..
>
> No, they would have to prove the mistake. That they don't honor the
> offer makes the prima facia case that they didn't intend to.
You are asking them to prove a negative, to prove that they weren't
planning on not honoring the price. As you mention below, negatives can't
be proven. Besides, them changing the price and saying it was a typo is
their proof that it was a typo.
>> Making a typo in a price of something is not "Advertising goods or
>> services with intent not to sell them as advertised."
>
> They have to prove the typo. You don't have to prove it wasn't.
> Negatives can't be proven.
See above.
>> How often have you
>> gone into a store and seen flyers stating that Article XXXX, which
>> was advertised at $19.99 should have been priced at $22.99 or
>> something like that. If you think about it, it is quite common.
>
>
> That would be a typo and they'll have proof of that.
They will have a piece of paper saying that HOMM V is a MSRP of $49.99.
The fact that it went up at $19.99 is a clear typo.
>>>> Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better
>>>> lawyers than you, so lots of luck.
>>>
>>> Good lawyers still can't change the letter of the law.
>>
>> But the letter of the law above deals with the intent of the wrong
>> price. In that case, the quality of the lawyers has a very big
>> effect.
>
>
> Either Target has proof it was a typo, or they don't.
And you must be assuming that they are pretty stupid if you don't think
that they have proof.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
magnate
this issue: the PR effects. Here in the UK I have several times got to
a checkout to discover that the item is not priced as shown on the
shelf, at which point a very interesting revelation about the company
ensues. In very few cases have they actually honoured the lower shelf
price, for a variety of reasons (item on wrong shelf, price out of
date, item subtly different to the one priced etc.), but there is a
massive variance in the type of response. These range from "Too bad.
You gonna get out of people's way or what?" to "I'm terribly sorry sir,
that's not actually the item to which the price refers, we've sold out
of that but if you give me your number I'll call you when we get more
in stock". Target's letter posted above seems to fall about halfway
between these two.
Personally I don't think it was a mistake - it was up for far too long
for that to be the case. I think it was either a deliberate bait&switch
(given their described history), or something happened to give them
cold feet (like a delivery date slipping or something). Either way I
reckon it's been negative PR for them, albeit that this community is
probably not vital to their existence.
CC
Shawn Wilson
>>>> CALIFORNIA CODES
>>>> CIVIL CODE
>>>> SECTION 1770
>>>>
>>>> 1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
>>>> deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
>>>> transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
>>>> of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
>>>> advertised.
>>>
>>> But then you have to prove that they put the wrong price up on
>>> purpose..
>>
>> No, they would have to prove the mistake. That they don't honor the
>> offer makes the prima facia case that they didn't intend to.
>
> You are asking them to prove a negative, to prove that they weren't
> planning on not honoring the price.
No. They have to prove it was a typo.
> As you mention below, negatives can't
> be proven.
"it was a typo" isnt a negative.
> Besides, them changing the price and saying it was a typo is
> their proof that it was a typo.
Not to a court.
Marcel Beaudoin
@fed1read02:
>
> "Marcel Beaudoin" <marcel....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns975079442669A...@130.133.1.4...
>> Besides, them changing the price and saying it was a typo is
>> their proof that it was a typo.
>
> Not to a court.
You conveniantly snipped the later part of my message. Just in case you
missed it by accident, let me repost it for you below:
They will have a piece of paper saying that HOMM V is a MSRP of $49.99.
The fact that it went up at $19.99 is a clear typo.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
jwb
news:HIOzf.12017$sA3.2740@fed1read02...
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> California law-
>
> CALIFORNIA CODES
> CIVIL CODE
> SECTION 1770
>
> 1770. (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or
> deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a
> transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease
> of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
> ...
> (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
> advertised.
does matter. That little word "intent" means everything.
This does NOT say that a store must sell something at an advertised price.
jwb
news:QPPzf.12020$sA3.4634@fed1read02...
>
> No. They have to prove it was a typo.
which they did by saying "ooops, sorry"
But go ahead and take them to court of you're so sure. Be sure to report the
results to us so we can all say "I told you so"
Bob
"Avilan" <stefans...@gmail.com> wrote in message > Yes it
does. This is why most SALE!-ads tend to have fine print stating
> "only valid until stock sold out" or something to that effect so
> that
> the store won't be forced to order a product that is sold out
> just so
> you can buy it to a lower price.
>
Learn to read?
Bob
> whatsoever.
Twit. The BBB is an ADVERTISING agency for people who PAY them.
It's about equal to reading an advertisement from that Monkey game
from Moyen (sp) by Moyen.
Marcel Beaudoin
>
> You conveniantly snipped the later part of my message. Just in case you
> missed it by accident, let me repost it for you below:
That'ss teach me to post when I am annoyed with people at work.
The above came out a lot harsher than I wanted it to come out, and I
apologize.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
Ross Ridge
>Am I the only one who is wondering.. I mean.. From when
>this whole "bargain" was first discovered and posted about
>a couple months back or whatever.. Everyone involved was
>saying "it's too good to be true" and "I wonder if they'll honor
>the price" and stuff. It was obvious that everyone *knew* it
>was a mistake and tried to capitalize on it..
Personally, I just thought it ment that UBI Soft was rebranding Heroes of
Might an Magic V as a budget title, given how badly the previous game did.
A fair number of games these days are released as $20 budget titles.
Ross Ridge
Ross Ridge
>People are held reponsible for their own actions. But everyone knows
>errors and accidents occur.
So why should the consumer be held responsile for the errors and accidents
of the store?
>If you post here that you will sell your car for $10, and I call you on
>it, you will be under no obligation to sell it to me, for that price or
>any other.
If $10 wasn't a completely absurd price for the car, say it was 15
year old junker, then he'd be contractually obligated to sell it to
you at that price, even if, say, someone else offered him $100 for it.
(Actually, with cars, real estate and certain other properties the law
often requires a signed written contract, but this is a special case.)
Ross Ridge
jwb
news:dqolco$n2q$2...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>>People are held reponsible for their own actions. But everyone knows
>>errors and accidents occur.
>
> So why should the consumer be held responsile for the errors and accidents
> of the store?
They aren't held responsible, and nothing bad happens to them. They just
don't get the item at the mistaken price.
>>If you post here that you will sell your car for $10, and I call you on
>>it, you will be under no obligation to sell it to me, for that price or
>>any other.
>
> If $10 wasn't a completely absurd price for the car, say it was 15
> year old junker, then he'd be contractually obligated to sell it to
> you at that price, even if, say, someone else offered him $100 for it.
> (Actually, with cars, real estate and certain other properties the law
> often requires a signed written contract, but this is a special case.)
cite the law that says target must sell it.
jwb
to be fair, that's what I thought, too.
Ross Ridge
>Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better lawyers
>than you, so lots of luck.
If Target has to pay a single lawyer to fight a single customer in court
it's going to cost them even more money in legal fees then honouring the
price would have. I don't think it's worth anyone time to take Target
to court here, but if anyone does there's a good chance that Target
won't even bother to show up.
Ross Ridge
Ross Ridge
>All your arguments are just attempts to claim that something is in the
>law "a sale once initiated is utterly irrevocable whatever the
>circumstances, even if it was the result of an error", which is not in
>the law.
All contracts are binding. That's basic contract law. When you enter
into a contract if your responsibility to make sure you're not making
any mistakes.
Ross Ridge
not_...@hotmail.com
>
> Personally I don't think it was a mistake - it was up for far too long
> for that to be the case. I think it was either a deliberate bait&switch
> (given their described history), or something happened to give them
> cold feet (like a delivery date slipping or something). Either way I
> reckon it's been negative PR for them, albeit that this community is
> probably not vital to their existence.
>
> CC
I really don't get where the "bait and switch" is in this situation.
They posted the advertisement and later cancelled it when they saw it
was an error. There's no indication of any arm twisting to buy
something else that I can see. As far as it being up for too long, I'm
sure that they don't sit and obsess over all their ads. The orders
probably just keep accumulating until somebody starts processing them.
That's when someone noticed the mistake. After all the game hasn't even
been released yet, has it? I'm not a particular fan of large
corporations but sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.
Wolfing
Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
> You are asking them to prove a negative, to prove that they weren't
> planning on not honoring the price. As you mention below, negatives can't
> be proven. Besides, them changing the price and saying it was a typo is
> their proof that it was a typo.
>
the negative of them not having weapons of mass destruction. And since
he's the president of the US that means he's right... right? :)
jwb
news:29nvs11ds762715p2...@4ax.com...
> Kevin's got it right here, we have to bear in mind that the OP was
> talking about a different situation of a pre-order were a charge was
> made and accepted prior to availability (mID
> 1137654877....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com).
>
> In the UK, the fact that the seller accepts money from the purchaser to
> provide a product at an agreed price at a delivery date in the future
> (whether specified or not) forms a contract. As I mentioned in a
> previous post this is one reason most e-tailers won't take the money
> until they are ready to ship considering that the point at which the
> contract is formed (which mostly matches with the law).
>
> As JWB has been getting at there is no law that states that they must
> honour that contract if it is in fact damaging to them to do so, for
> instance selling below cost without intent to do so (i.e. not a
> 'sale/promotional' item). But they have made things difficult for
> themselves by taking the money up front as (at least in the UK) you
> would be able to ask for 'damages' for a contract not unilaterally
> dissolved, at minimum interest on your money they have held.
correct, but I think in this case, no money changed hands.
If money changes hands and they charged a credit card, it's a completely
different situation.
fredf...@spamcop.net
Bateau wrote:
> They might just be obliged to sell it to you for the advertised price.
> That's a law which was designed for real life stores though.
>
> "mattchu" <mattchu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Greetings from Tar...@Amazon.com,
> >
> >We regret to inform you that an error caused "Heroes of Might & Magic
> >5",
> >which you ordered from the
> >Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
> >
> >In accordance with our posted policies on pricing, we are unable to
> >offer
> >this item for the incorrectly posted
> >price. Therefore, we have cancelled your order for this item.
> >
> >At any given time, despite our best efforts, a small number of the
> >items on
> >the Tar...@Amazon.com store may be
> >mispriced. We do, however, verify prices as part of our shipping
> >procedures. If we discover that an item's correct
> >price is higher than the stated price on Tar...@Amazon.com, we will, at
> >our
> >discretion, either contact you for
> >instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of
> >such
> >cancellation. This policy is posted in
> >the Help section and is accessible through numerous other areas of our
> >web
> >site.
> >
> >We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
> >
> >We value your business and hope that you will give us a chance to serve
> >you
> >again in the future.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Customer Service Department
> >Tar...@Amazon.com
> >
> >Please note: this e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that
> >
> >cannot accept incoming e-mail. Please do
> >not reply to this message.
I dunno if there is black letter law to that effect but almost
certainly
there is case law that maintains it is fraud to charge a higher
price than advertised.
It would also surprise me very much if the vendor could be successfully
prosecuted (civilly or criminally) for an honest mistake made in an
advertisement.
Further, I would be surprised if the 'honest mistake' defense were
not disallowed if the vendor did not correct the mistake in a timely
manner.
In your specific case it appears that they cancel orders when a mistake
is found. None-the-less, they may be oblidged to also correct the
errors in a timely manner for a number of reasons.
For a better discussion wherein someon might actually point to
real law, you could try posting to misc.legal.moderated.
--
FF
jwb
news:25rvs197cdju0cec1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:44:11 GMT, "jwb"
> <jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Advertising a wrong price, or running out of an item, are honest mistakes.
>
> Honest mistake or not, here in Canada they would still have to sell it
> to you at the advertised price.
can you cite a law? I'm genuinely curious. Because if so, anyone could be
easily put out of business over a "mistake".
Stephen
> "Stephen" <viki_n...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ytHzf.13024$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...>> news:SWDzf.1776$yE4...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>>> "Quaestor" <no-...@my.place> wrote in message
>>> news:11stk2g...@news.supernews.com...
>>>> jwb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They are still stuck with selling at the advertised price to anyone who
>>>> accepted the deal when the price was advertised.
>>>
>>> show me a law that states this.
>>>
>>> You won't find one.
>>>
>>
>> The Latest consumer protection law here in California is AB 1721, It
>> requires that the lowest posted or advertised price must be honored. It
>> is an update to cover scanners. It does not cover internet sales.
>
> so, you're saying if a newspaper mistakenly screws up a car dealer's ad,
> and has cars for a dollar, the dealer must honor it. Or a clerk screws up
> and has a game for half of what it would sell for. Or, say some kids put
> different prices on the used cars overnight... the dealer would *have* to
> sell it? Or some customer puts a different price on an expensive item...
> the store would *have* to sell it?
>
> No way, no how. Post a link to the law.
>
>
In practice here in Calif. , If a newspaper ad is in error, the store posts
a sign at the entrance that an error has occur and quotes the correct price.
AB 1721 became effective Jan. 1 2005 to include scanner price changes.
I'm sure there are other consumer protection laws that cover bait-n-switch
tactics. I did a simple web search just to find one. I don't feel like
researching to find a link for your curiosity. You have the law and state,
search it your self.
Stephen
Knight37
I thought that too at first, but then I did some more research and
realized that a lot of other vendors (GameStop, EBGames, GoGamer) were
listing HOMM5 pre-orders at a substantially higher price than Target
was. That's the ONLY reason I pre-ordered it at all. So basically them
changing the price to $49.99 MSRP just lost them a sale from me. Now
I'll just wait for reviews and see if it's really worth a full price
game. And even then, I'll probably wait on a sale. Maybe a few thousand
pre-orders at $20 would have been better advertisement for them than
all this negative PR is going to be. Who knows. Target's goof-up may
have seriously impacted HOMM5's first-month sales performance.
Knight37
jwb
>
> "jwb" <jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:u5Jzf.1787$yE4...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>> "Stephen" <viki_n...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> The Latest consumer protection law here in California is AB 1721, It
>>> requires that the lowest posted or advertised price must be honored. It
>>> is an update to cover scanners. It does not cover internet sales.
>>
>> so, you're saying if a newspaper mistakenly screws up a car dealer's ad,
>> and has cars for a dollar, the dealer must honor it. Or a clerk screws up
>> and has a game for half of what it would sell for. Or, say some kids put
>> different prices on the used cars overnight... the dealer would *have* to
>> sell it? Or some customer puts a different price on an expensive item...
>> the store would *have* to sell it?
>>
>> No way, no how. Post a link to the law.
>>
>>
>
> In practice here in Calif. , If a newspaper ad is in error, the store
> posts a sign at the entrance that an error has occur and quotes the
> correct price.
so the law makes exceptions for mistakes, right? That's been my entire point
all along. That a store, or business, does *not* have to honor a price that
is an error or such.
However, you yourself stated in the previous post that the law "requires
that the lowest posted or advertised price must be honored."
which is MUCH different than what you are now saying it does. Because, a
mistake is still an advertised price. Agree?
> AB 1721 became effective Jan. 1 2005 to include scanner price changes. I'm
> sure there are other consumer protection laws that cover bait-n-switch
> tactics. I did a simple web search just to find one. I don't feel like
> researching to find a link for your curiosity. You have the law and
> state, search it your self.
Oh, I don't need to find it - I fully agree with you that there are laws
against bait and switch. Which is far different than what happened here.
True "Bait and switch" almost never happens anymore, and certainly not by
large retailers.
Mistakes and unforeseen errors in pricing and inventory levels for sales are
often (mistakenly) called "false advertising" or "bait and switch" by
people, which neither is usually true.
"Bait and switch" is knowingly advertising something for a wrong price, or
knowingly advertising something you don't have just to draw traffic, and
then offering that traffic another item you want to get rid of or make some
bigger profit on. It is planned, and it is deceptive. And it almost never
happens anymore.
Stephen
"expired" but the item is still on shelf with price or Sale signs are still
in place , the store has to honor the lowest price. Don't know what covers
newspaper Ads and etc. Just know that stores post errors at door. The
original request was for a law that forces a store to honor it's sale price.
Here is the link to a description of such a law
http://www.dca.ca.gov/press_releases/2004/1231.htm
As most things in life, one should take responsibility for one's mistake,
Even buisnesses.
jwb
again,. and we're probably splitting hairs at this point, but it appears
from the language it has to be a valid sale price (which I agree with) - but
again, not a mistake or a mismark. Because if the opposite were the case,
then any home depot employee with a magic marker can get his/her entire
family garden tractors for $1.00 each. And I'm sure we can all agree that
the law won't defend that.
jwb
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:55:41 GMT, "jwb"
> <jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>can you cite a law? I'm genuinely curious. Because if so, anyone could be
>>easily put out of business over a "mistake".
>>
>
> up for you but google is not returning the citations I'm looking for.
> I do know I have got products more than once at the box sticker price
> when the price at the til has been higher when scanned.
I think most stores do that out of goodwill.
I mean, really - think about it. If laws truly existed that *forced* a store
to sell anything at the marked price, what would protect retailers from a
disgruntled employee making a sign that says "10 cents" for a $100 item?
I do agree there *are* laws that will protect against bait and switch,
knowingly displaying a wrong price, leaving the "sale" sign up too long, etc
etc.
Quaestor
>Wouldn't accepting a vendor's terms also count as a contract?
>
That's the US law.
--
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html
Quaestor
>Gerry Quinn skrev:
>
>
>>- Gerry Quinn
>>
>>
>
>legally binding as a rash promise on usenet according to you.
>
>
Hint: That guy loves to argue. Move on.
Quaestor
>Am I the only one who is wondering.. I mean.. From when
>this whole "bargain" was first discovered and posted about
>a couple months back or whatever.. Everyone involved was
>saying "it's too good to be true" and "I wonder if they'll honor
>the price" and stuff. It was obvious that everyone *knew* it
>was a mistake and tried to capitalize on it..
>
>And now, people are bending over backwards to make it out
>to be something illegal or immoral.. or something they should be
>compensated for somehow.
>
>YOU ALL KNEW IT WAS A MISTAKE TO BEGIN WITH.
>
>WTF?
>
I don't know any such thing. target is a dirty outfit, and I would not
be at all surprised to find they had intended this as a way of getting
some shock advertising value out of it.
Be that as it may, the law DOES punish those who make such "mistakes" by
forcing them to accept sales at the advertised price for so long as the
price is that. This hurts them for trying such crap, and that is a good
thing.
WTF?
Art Weingardner
<jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote:
>"Art Weingardner" <ar...@softhome.net> wrote in message
>news:33nts199s7mr7ih4i...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:22:29 GMT, "jwb"
>> <jwb3333youmu...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bateau" <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:d81ss1t3kjlm1prc5...@4ax.com...
>>>> They might just be obliged to sell it to you for the advertised price.
>>>> That's a law which was designed for real life stores though.
>>>
>>
>> what part is wrong? and can you point us someplace to back it up?
>
>It's pretty hard to "prove" that something like this doesn't exist. Instead,
>the OP can point us to the law.
it's been my experience that in a B&M store anytime there is a
difference between the shelf price tag and what the computer rings up
at the register the customer always gets the lower price. you seemed
to be pretty sure that wasn't the case so i thought you could prove
it. hell, even i've even done that at best buy and they're a store
that'll try to screw you 6 ways to sunday if they can get away with
it.
Quaestor
>Quaestor <no-...@my.place> wrote in news:11sv0g6rsmii0c8
>@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
>>What this means is, when target advertised a sale of goods at a given
>>price, they were obligated to sell at that price for as long as the
>>offer continued, and were obligated to deliver upon contract (ie: when
>>available, or whatever the terms were) once the buyers made the contract
>>by paying the specified price.
>>
>>
>
>Note that Best Buy has the following in their terms and conditions, I
>imagine most other sites would use the same argument.
>*****
>The advertisements on the Web Site are invitations for purchase orders,
>and are not offers to sell. Your properly completed and delivered order
>form constitutes your offer to purchase the goods or services referenced
>in your order. Your order shall be deemed to be accepted only if and when
>Best Buy sends both an order acceptance and shipment notice email to your
>email address. The order acceptance and shipment notice email constitutes
>Best Buy's acceptance of your order.
>*****
>
>So what they are saying is that they haven't actually accepted your offer
>to sell until they have accepted your offer (not received it) and have
>shipped the product in question to you.
>
>
What they are saying is they do not want the business of anyone who
either cares about business law or wants to be sure of getting a proper
deal. I wouldn't buy from best buy no matter what. They are another
dirty outfit.
And no, their presumptuous statements do not trump law.
Quaestor
>Ah, enter the world of fine print:
>If the ad (for example) states somewhere that "above prices might be
>incorrect" (or something to that effect), or "please be aware that
>sudden price changes might occur" etc... they are in the clear.
>
>
Not if an action to accept their offer to sell is completed. Once
"ordered" for a set price, that is a contract.
Quaestor
>It's interesting that no-one has yet talked about the other side of
>this issue: the PR effects.
>
That is because target is in the toilet already.
>Here in the UK I have several times got to
>a checkout to discover that the item is not priced as shown on the
>shelf, at which point a very interesting revelation about the company
>ensues. In very few cases have they actually honoured the lower shelf
>price, for a variety of reasons (item on wrong shelf, price out of
>date, item subtly different to the one priced etc.), but there is a
>massive variance in the type of response. These range from "Too bad.
>You gonna get out of people's way or what?" to "I'm terribly sorry sir,
>that's not actually the item to which the price refers, we've sold out
>of that but if you give me your number I'll call you when we get more
>in stock". Target's letter posted above seems to fall about halfway
>between these two.
>
>
In my case, since the one time back in about 1994 when I walked out of a
kmart for the last time, not buying, the response has always been the
same when the computer price has not matched the shelf price: they sell
at the lower price, knowing I'm just itching to drag them into court
over the extra 25 cents they are trying to get. Stand up to the
bastiges and they always crack in the end.
>Personally I don't think it was a mistake - it was up for far too long
>for that to be the case. I think it was either a deliberate bait&switch
>(given their described history), or something happened to give them
>cold feet (like a delivery date slipping or something). Either way I
>reckon it's been negative PR for them, albeit that this community is
>probably not vital to their existence.
>
Every turd on their name helps drive home the point.
Quaestor
>I really don't get where the "bait and switch" is in this situation.
>
>
They baited with $19.95, and switched to $49.95, same item.
jwb
Most places will do it out of goodwill. But show me a law that forces a
retailer to sell at a price made in error.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>
>"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:j5kts19tqm8asusma...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Jan 2006 22:00:35 -0800, "mattchu" <mattchu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>which you ordered from the
>>>Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>>
>> Here in the UK, I think they're obliged to sell it for the advertised
>> price.
>>
>To be honest, I think that isn't the case. I remember various articles and
>TV shows which have stated that this is an incorrect, though common,
>misconception in the UK. Supposedly if a shop underpriced an item on the
>shelves they would not be bound to sell it at this price. When you presented
>it at the counter they could tell you it was a mistake, and offer to sell it
>to you at the proper price. If you didn't want to pay the higher price they
>could just decline to sell it to you - there's no obligation for a store to
>sell a customer any of its stock. On the other hand, apparently a lot of
>supermarkets and other high profile stores will honour the incorrect price
>just for good customer relations - if you've got a bargain you're more
>likely to come back, and the money lost to them will disappear in the noise
>of theft\breakages\etc across the chain.
I'm reminded of a coat I bought years ago.
I'd been in the place (a "western" store) to price it (A "duster" style
coat).
I went back something like 3 months later when I actually had the cash
to buy it.
I commented something like "Oh it's gone up in price" (something like
$20)
At which point they sold it to me at the original price they'd told me 3
months earlier, because "they'd quoted me a price".
Needless to say I went back there multiple times and directed others
there.
That kind of good business deserves to be supported.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Art Weingardner
>Target basically is vying with kmart to see who can be the sleaziest. I
>last went into either more than 10 years ago, and if they were the last
>store on earth and I had to have something from them to survive I would
>die boycotting them.
there is one reason to go into target - the clearance sections
Art Weingardner
<ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <1137654443....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>stefans...@gmail.com says...
>> I would be very very surprised if there was not a law in the US forcing
>> companies to sell to the advertised price.
>> Most European countries have that law; including my own, Sweden. The
>> law is obviously there to prevent "Bait and Switch" behavior.
>
>And for that reason, it will not apply to accidental mis-posted prices,
>unless your legislators are complete morons.
it does for in-store price tags but it's no big deal for a B&M store
because they can fix it after they have to pay for the first mistake.
the internet price mistakes get left up for hours or days and hundreds
of orders placed before they are caught. they need to improve their
software that takes orders to shut down any items that show an unusual
number of sales. or pay more than one person to enter the complete set
of prices and have it catch any prices that do not match.
Art Weingardner
>Feel free to take Target to court. I'm guessing they got better lawyers
>than you, so lots of luck.
hey class action lawsuit and everyone will get to save $5 on a $50 pc
game at target. hoo ray!
or you could go 'borrow' some of their shit for 90 days and then give
it back.
Art Weingardner
>
>I'm not happy about it, but lets get fucking realistic.
in the long run this game we'll be $20 in a couple of months. they
entered the right price but at the wrong time!
Mark Morrison
<not....@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Morrison" <drdp...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:j5kts19tqm8asusma...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Jan 2006 22:00:35 -0800, "mattchu" <mattchu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>which you ordered from the
>>>Tar...@Amazon.com store, to be displayed at an incorrect price.
>>
>> Here in the UK, I think they're obliged to sell it for the advertised
>> price.
>>
>To be honest, I think that isn't the case. I remember various articles and
>TV shows which have stated that this is an incorrect, though common,
>misconception in the UK. Supposedly if a shop underpriced an item on the
>shelves they would not be bound to sell it at this price. When you presented
>it at the counter they could tell you it was a mistake, and offer to sell it
>to you at the proper price. If you didn't want to pay the higher price they
>could just decline to sell it to you - there's no obligation for a store to
>sell a customer any of its stock. On the other hand, apparently a lot of
>supermarkets and other high profile stores will honour the incorrect price
>just for good customer relations - if you've got a bargain you're more
>likely to come back, and the money lost to them will disappear in the noise
>of theft\breakages\etc across the chain.
>
>Not sure if a pre-order would be treated differently though - in that case
>would the pre-order constitute some form of contract to sell at the stated
>price?
>
>Kev
>
Wasn't there a case where Argos advertised a bunch of big TVs at
something silly like £100 ? They changed it, but were obliged to sell
it for that to the few dozen people who had ordered it.
Same for websites like Amazon, when they mis-price things.
It's possible that they're not obliged to, but do so anyway, for PR
purposes.
I also seem to remember some rule about how the mislabeled price
*could* be right, and be reasonable believed by the customer to be
correct. So a DVD box set going for £15 instead of £60 *could* be
believed to be accurate, whereas a new car being sold for the same
price wouldn't, so the car seller wouldn't be obliged to honour the
price.
I'm honestly not sure.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !