damit i still get that error message right after I hit submit order. I added a new credit card, which should't matter because order total is 0.00 but still no good.
Ziptar,
Now THAT is some seriously F'd up Sh!t, man. For whatever reason, the rules governing advertisements (including website offers) is different than the rules governing shelf tags.
I don't get the whole part about the Easter bunny, though, WTF?
Did you save the tag?
Now THAT is some seriously F'd up Sh!t, man. For whatever reason, the rules governing advertisements (including website offers) is different than the rules governing shelf tags.
I don't get the whole part about the Easter bunny, though, WTF?
Did you save the tag?
Ziptar, I was speaking earlier about the regular people that ordered online knowing they wouldn't get it and got a free $30, but your situation is very different. I would be pissed too. There are some states that do in fact have laws about having to sell items mispriced like that. They should have taken care of you by letting you order the product and then get rid of the tag so it didn't happen again. What is wrong with these Best Buy people? If I were you I would go back to a higher-level manager and calmly express your disappointment with the handling of the situation. And I would stay until they ordered the card for me at the tagged price. You've got a lot of fire-power in that argument. Good Luck!
<< Just had this discussion with another partner at the firm here and the answer is . . . . maybe. Can you find the case law to support it? Can BB find case law to refute it? Again, consideration is just the black letter law. Good case law is what counts. If anyone has the time, it would be a good idea to pull out a treatise on the UCC and see what it and the supporting case law have to say. >>
Well, Goobered, that's the point, isn't it? The case law is, at best, unclear. This has the potential to be a hell of a test case, especially considering the specific details.
Rolling over and taking it hard from BestBuy is only going to make it easier for companies to do you again and again in the future.
someone high within best buy is screwing with the information/pricing of this card. if you look at the image on the hard forums of the internal vendor info, in the description it says "valentine" twice (which has been in the system for the past 2 days). And then as of today 2-12, it has been changed to "easter bunny" in the same spots. this is not normal, nor any form of holiday special. someone who has database access (no one in any of the stores, only corporate), or someone who has gained internal access, is deliberately screwing with the stats on this card
<<
<< Just had this discussion with another partner at the firm here and the answer is . . . . maybe. Can you find the case law to support it? Can BB find case law to refute it? Again, consideration is just the black letter law. Good case law is what counts. If anyone has the time, it would be a good idea to pull out a treatise on the UCC and see what it and the supporting case law have to say. >>
Well, Goobered, that's the point, isn't it? The case law is, at best, unclear. This has the potential to be a hell of a test case, especially considering the specific details.
Rolling over and taking it hard from BestBuy is only going to make it easier for companies to do you again and again in the future. >>
Yup, absolutely the point. I was just saying that there's really no right or wrong answer here. Every lawyer has their own take on this. Finding the closest and best case law will win. Is that true though--have people checked out the case law? I don't recall seeing anyone saying that they have or have not seen a good/bad case on this. But, when there's over 100 pages to go through at HardOCP, it's easy to miss stuff.
This has the potential of being a lot of fun for somebody.
<< Oh joy, just what the world needs... another class-action lawsuit.
Some people need to take ECON 101.
G >>
I could not agree more.
A few other ramblings... Yes, it was a mistake (probably by one guy!), but people need to be forgiving of that. I mean- people make mistakes all the time (ie, forget birthdays, miss a meeting at work, etc...) and we don't hammer them to the wall on it- do we? We may be disappointed, but we need to forgive and move on. A class-action suit may cost US more in the long run anyway (as mentioned above) I never got my $26 Bluelight Nomad either (and also no $30 gift card for trying!), but I got over it, and if everyone here is honest- they knew there was little or no chance of getting that card at that price anyway. All I'm saying it- express your anger and vent a little bit- then let it go and move on to higher priorities of life. Just my opinion.
-TechM
I can't seem to get the $30 Gift card as well, stupid freaking authorization error. saying over limit!
I tried another CC as well with the same error. what the heck is going on!!!! :|
I tried another CC as well with the same error. what the heck is going on!!!! :|
As a commercial lawyer, I thought I would add my $0.02. The below is provided for informational purposes only and does not in any way constitute a legal opinion relevant to the claims or potential claims of those reading this.
First, the basics: Any binding contract requires proof of offer and acceptance (together indicating mutual assent to the terms) and must be supported by consideration. Consideration is really anything of value that provides support for the idea that the parties truly intended to be bound to their respective ends of the bargain. Consideration need not be tangible or physical (e.g. actual transmission of money); a promise to do something beyond which you already have an obligation to do (or not to do) will suffice. For example, the promise to pay money in exchange for the promise to perform a service is adequate consideration to support the deal when you hire someone to paint your house. On the other hand, the promise to pay someone in exchange for their promise not to punch you in the nose is unenforceable since no one has the right to assault another person.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) consists of model legal terms intended to govern, among other things, the sale of goods. Nearly every state has adopted the UCC into its body of law in one form or another. While the UCC provides some nice standardization in terms of how the law is worded, it does not really diverge from the basic law of contract mentioned above (i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration). Some states have decided the UCC provisions on sales do not apply to consumers, some say it does. In any event, its terms are likely useful to point out what is considered reasonable conduct when engaged in the sale of goods, regardless of who the purchaser is. A good example of this is Section 2-204 of the UCC which states that "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."
With respect to any on-line seller, one has to analyze whether the website extends an offer to sell or, rather, invites an offer to purchase, at the stated price. Generally, advertising (newspapers, catalogs, etc.) has been determined to be an invitation for customers to make an offer to purchase rather than an offer to sell. Similar logic would lead one to reasonably conclude that internet advertising on ones website should be treated similarly. Consequently, when we act to purchase from an on-line seller, we are the ones extending the offer to buy and it is the seller who must determine whether they will accept on those terms. Of course, most of the guesswork is removed from this process since the posted pricing would appear to indicate the price the seller will accept and the payment terms are usually obvious. Moving forward, let us assume that every card "purchaser" was actually an offeror-- extending an offer to BestBuy to buy the card for the stated price in the form of a credit card payment.
The next question would be whether BestBuy accepted the offer. UCC 2-206 (again, not inconsistent with basic contract law) provides the guidance that "an order or other offer to buy goods for prompt or current shipment shall be construed as inviting acceptance either by a prompt promise to ship or by the prompt or current shipment of conforming . . . goods. . . ." The main issue being whether the behavior of the accepting party is sufficiently particular to indicate assent to the deal. As for myself, I did not receive an immediate email confirming my order, but the BestBuy website did present order status information indicating my order was received and the goods were "on order." Is this enough to show acceptance of an order? Maybe. Some of us received "Backorder" notices indicating BestBuy "hope[ed] to be able to ship this item . . . soon." This would appear to add some weight to the argument that BestBuy is confirming its intent to sell the item for the stated price. I would also find it compelling if one could prove that the administrative portion of the credit card processing had also occurred (i.e. the charge amount is reserved against your spending balance). My own order was placed with an AMEX card, and I could not find any evidence of this having occurred-- at least via on-line access to my account. If this could be shown, I would think think all three of these factors are compelling evidence of assent to sell the card for the stated price (i.e. acceptance of our offers to purchase). The credit card information would probably be attainable via written request relative to your account-- small claims courts usually will issue subpoenas.
The last portion of the analysis (for me, anyway) is where BestBuy's terms and disclaimers enter the picture. The simplest point to make here is the obviousness with which the terms are accessible and displayed. I find it problematic that the terms are linked (thus not displayed through the ordinary purchase process) and that the link appears in relatively small type at the bottom of a webpage that is more than twice the size of a brower window. It is entirely conceivable that one could proceed to the checkout without ever seeing the link. Nor is there any statement during checkout that the order is being submitted or accepted subject to those terms. Disclaimers and conditions in the course of consumer transactions are usually viewed through a prism of the "least sophisticated purchaser," thus these factors would weigh in favor of a court not applying the terms.
Keep in mind that I am assuming acceptance can be established. An seller would be entitled to change prices (i.e. the amount for which it is soliciting offers) prior to it accepting an offer to purchase at that price. If the offer of $129.99 has, in fact, been accepted, I believe the above points would argue in favor of a court not allowing BestBuy to claim it reserved some right to rescind its acceptance of the offer. UCC 2-207 also supports this concept in that it provides that "A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless aceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms." Without a clear and obvious statement to the effect that an acceptance is conditioned upon certain other terms, the acceptance to the offer stands.
I do not believe a claim such as these to be a "slam dunk," but I certainly believe that there is a real good possibility that BestBuy could lose a claim such as this. Damages would likely be computed as the difference between the price of the card elsewhere versus the BestBuy advertised price, about $300.00. Many states have consumer protection laws that, when invoked, allow recovery of up to triple the amount of actual damages in the event of deceptive trade practices-- YMMV. Note that many states allow appeals from small claims decisions in the form of re-trial in the larger court. While this necessarily adds time and expense, it also dissuades do-it-yourselfers from going to the next level because the procedures are much more technical and detailed and ripe for missteps by non-lawyers.
First, the basics: Any binding contract requires proof of offer and acceptance (together indicating mutual assent to the terms) and must be supported by consideration. Consideration is really anything of value that provides support for the idea that the parties truly intended to be bound to their respective ends of the bargain. Consideration need not be tangible or physical (e.g. actual transmission of money); a promise to do something beyond which you already have an obligation to do (or not to do) will suffice. For example, the promise to pay money in exchange for the promise to perform a service is adequate consideration to support the deal when you hire someone to paint your house. On the other hand, the promise to pay someone in exchange for their promise not to punch you in the nose is unenforceable since no one has the right to assault another person.
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) consists of model legal terms intended to govern, among other things, the sale of goods. Nearly every state has adopted the UCC into its body of law in one form or another. While the UCC provides some nice standardization in terms of how the law is worded, it does not really diverge from the basic law of contract mentioned above (i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration). Some states have decided the UCC provisions on sales do not apply to consumers, some say it does. In any event, its terms are likely useful to point out what is considered reasonable conduct when engaged in the sale of goods, regardless of who the purchaser is. A good example of this is Section 2-204 of the UCC which states that "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."
With respect to any on-line seller, one has to analyze whether the website extends an offer to sell or, rather, invites an offer to purchase, at the stated price. Generally, advertising (newspapers, catalogs, etc.) has been determined to be an invitation for customers to make an offer to purchase rather than an offer to sell. Similar logic would lead one to reasonably conclude that internet advertising on ones website should be treated similarly. Consequently, when we act to purchase from an on-line seller, we are the ones extending the offer to buy and it is the seller who must determine whether they will accept on those terms. Of course, most of the guesswork is removed from this process since the posted pricing would appear to indicate the price the seller will accept and the payment terms are usually obvious. Moving forward, let us assume that every card "purchaser" was actually an offeror-- extending an offer to BestBuy to buy the card for the stated price in the form of a credit card payment.
The next question would be whether BestBuy accepted the offer. UCC 2-206 (again, not inconsistent with basic contract law) provides the guidance that "an order or other offer to buy goods for prompt or current shipment shall be construed as inviting acceptance either by a prompt promise to ship or by the prompt or current shipment of conforming . . . goods. . . ." The main issue being whether the behavior of the accepting party is sufficiently particular to indicate assent to the deal. As for myself, I did not receive an immediate email confirming my order, but the BestBuy website did present order status information indicating my order was received and the goods were "on order." Is this enough to show acceptance of an order? Maybe. Some of us received "Backorder" notices indicating BestBuy "hope[ed] to be able to ship this item . . . soon." This would appear to add some weight to the argument that BestBuy is confirming its intent to sell the item for the stated price. I would also find it compelling if one could prove that the administrative portion of the credit card processing had also occurred (i.e. the charge amount is reserved against your spending balance). My own order was placed with an AMEX card, and I could not find any evidence of this having occurred-- at least via on-line access to my account. If this could be shown, I would think think all three of these factors are compelling evidence of assent to sell the card for the stated price (i.e. acceptance of our offers to purchase). The credit card information would probably be attainable via written request relative to your account-- small claims courts usually will issue subpoenas.
The last portion of the analysis (for me, anyway) is where BestBuy's terms and disclaimers enter the picture. The simplest point to make here is the obviousness with which the terms are accessible and displayed. I find it problematic that the terms are linked (thus not displayed through the ordinary purchase process) and that the link appears in relatively small type at the bottom of a webpage that is more than twice the size of a brower window. It is entirely conceivable that one could proceed to the checkout without ever seeing the link. Nor is there any statement during checkout that the order is being submitted or accepted subject to those terms. Disclaimers and conditions in the course of consumer transactions are usually viewed through a prism of the "least sophisticated purchaser," thus these factors would weigh in favor of a court not applying the terms.
Keep in mind that I am assuming acceptance can be established. An seller would be entitled to change prices (i.e. the amount for which it is soliciting offers) prior to it accepting an offer to purchase at that price. If the offer of $129.99 has, in fact, been accepted, I believe the above points would argue in favor of a court not allowing BestBuy to claim it reserved some right to rescind its acceptance of the offer. UCC 2-207 also supports this concept in that it provides that "A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless aceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms." Without a clear and obvious statement to the effect that an acceptance is conditioned upon certain other terms, the acceptance to the offer stands.
I do not believe a claim such as these to be a "slam dunk," but I certainly believe that there is a real good possibility that BestBuy could lose a claim such as this. Damages would likely be computed as the difference between the price of the card elsewhere versus the BestBuy advertised price, about $300.00. Many states have consumer protection laws that, when invoked, allow recovery of up to triple the amount of actual damages in the event of deceptive trade practices-- YMMV. Note that many states allow appeals from small claims decisions in the form of re-trial in the larger court. While this necessarily adds time and expense, it also dissuades do-it-yourselfers from going to the next level because the procedures are much more technical and detailed and ripe for missteps by non-lawyers.
Bah, who cares. We didn't get a card for a third of it's price, but we did get a $30 coupon for free. I don't know what you guys are gonna use it on, but I'm tempted to just get 3 50-packs of Acer CD-R's.
Ron-
Thank you very much for that legal insight into our system.
It will be of much assistance as we (the people in this case, mostly you can find us at www.hardforums.com under general mayhem forum) begin to build our legal case.
Thanks for taking the time to write all that!!
Thank you very much for that legal insight into our system.
It will be of much assistance as we (the people in this case, mostly you can find us at www.hardforums.com under general mayhem forum) begin to build our legal case.
Thanks for taking the time to write all that!!
Well, now they've done it again. I was @ BB today there were two tags on the shelf for the TI 4600. One @ the right price and a hand written one @ $129.99 yes I said $129.99. I took the card to the service counter and asked for a preorder on this item. Same story as what happened to Ziptar. They huddled around debated for 20 mins. then would not honor the shelf tag price.
Basically they said they don't have to give it to me for that price for an item that is not in stock mistake or not. :|
Of course I could order one @ the correct price, yeah right!
Oh well. I tried.
I have a feeling that this whole thing is "far" from over to say the least.
Basically they said they don't have to give it to me for that price for an item that is not in stock mistake or not. :|
Of course I could order one @ the correct price, yeah right!
Oh well. I tried.
I have a feeling that this whole thing is "far" from over to say the least.
Can the same law be used to help with the NECXDirect/Rio problem, where they had the picture and discription of product A on the site when i ordered, only to check and see that they changed the description to now equal product B? I already ordered product A, days before they switched it!
Please run a search on this forum for rio EX1000 for more details.
Please run a search on this forum for rio EX1000 for more details.
<< The last portion of the analysis (for me, anyway) is where BestBuy's terms and disclaimers enter the picture. The simplest point to make here is the obviousness with which the terms are accessible and displayed. I find it problematic that the terms are linked (thus not displayed through the ordinary purchase process) and that the link appears in relatively small type at the bottom of a webpage that is more than twice the size of a brower window. It is entirely conceivable that one could proceed to the checkout without ever seeing the link. Nor is there any statement during checkout that the order is being submitted or accepted subject to those terms. Disclaimers and conditions in the course of consumer transactions are usually viewed through a prism of the "least sophisticated purchaser," thus these factors would weigh in favor of a court not applying the terms.
>>
I would hope that the courts wouldn't construe the terms and disclaimers on the website as similar to the fine print disclaiming liability on the back of a parking ticket. Seems that courts are more inclined now than before to view such things as valid.
I think the point surrounds whether a purchaser on the website had any knowledge of additional terms and/or whether such terms constituted condition(s) of BestBuy's acceptance.
Parking tickets and the language printed on them serve a slightly different purpose in that they attempt to eliminate responsibility of the garage owner for any damage to your car once you leave it. In the case of these tickets, the car owner can be said to physically possess the "contract" and therefore, cannot absolve himself from its terms just by saying he chose not to read them. Still, there are even some published cases that hold there must be some affirmative evidence that the parker knew about the language where it is not apparent from the face of the ticket (e.g. wording saying "READ THE BACK" when the fine print is on the back of the ticket).
In the case of the website, it is not apparent there are any terms (as mentioned in my previous post). I, for one, didn't see them until I went back in preparation of my last post. Had there been some link or reference to them that was obviously displayed during the checkout process, it would be more along the lines of the parking ticket in that you had the terms but chose not to read them. It is quite another thing when one attempts to condition contract acceptance on terms that were not obviously disclosed to the offeror.
Parking tickets and the language printed on them serve a slightly different purpose in that they attempt to eliminate responsibility of the garage owner for any damage to your car once you leave it. In the case of these tickets, the car owner can be said to physically possess the "contract" and therefore, cannot absolve himself from its terms just by saying he chose not to read them. Still, there are even some published cases that hold there must be some affirmative evidence that the parker knew about the language where it is not apparent from the face of the ticket (e.g. wording saying "READ THE BACK" when the fine print is on the back of the ticket).
In the case of the website, it is not apparent there are any terms (as mentioned in my previous post). I, for one, didn't see them until I went back in preparation of my last post. Had there been some link or reference to them that was obviously displayed during the checkout process, it would be more along the lines of the parking ticket in that you had the terms but chose not to read them. It is quite another thing when one attempts to condition contract acceptance on terms that were not obviously disclosed to the offeror.
<< Can the same law be used to help with the NECXDirect/Rio problem, where they had the picture and discription of product A on the site when i ordered, only to check and see that they changed the description to now equal product B? I already ordered product A, days before they switched it! Please run a search on this forum for rio EX1000 for more details. >>
cant find your post, pls gimme url
this is a HUGE disaster, i'm sure very few of us are affected though so don't expect much of a response like we are getting with GF4... dammit i am holding Gateway responsible for their actions and intend to see this thru! i put my order in on feb 5, 2002 for the REAL Rio EX1000 and now suddenly they are changing the description etc?!?! this kind of sh*t has got to stop!! =(((
wayne
Did none of you guys see the bottom of your shopping cart? Maybe you should take a better look.
Shopping Cart JPG
Stop complaining and use you free $30.
ODYSSEY
Shopping Cart JPG
Stop complaining and use you free $30.
ODYSSEY
Maybe. Probably just dreams of being one, someday.
Terms, of course, are not an end-all, be-all. They must basically comply with law to be valid (and you'd be suprised at how many don't.)
Terms, of course, are not an end-all, be-all. They must basically comply with law to be valid (and you'd be suprised at how many don't.)
<< Did none of you guys see the bottom of your shopping cart? Maybe you should take a better look.
Shopping Cart JPG
Stop complaining and use you free $30.
ODYSSEY >>
So? The agreement (if indeed there was one) was made based on the item and pricing shown. So, if a dealership for cars says that on the sticker, then you can buy what you're thinking is a 'vette and they can unilaterally decide to give you a chevette.
I hardly think that switching products and prices after the fact would be legal.
Agreed. Where is there anyplace on the website (including when you register) that tells you that certain "terms of service" will apply to all purchases? Nowhere. I even think the link (when it is visible) is ambiguous.
My company does web-based sales, and we make sure that a checkbox is clicked by the user acknowledging the T&Cs that apply to the sale prior to the order being completed. Without something equally clear and unambiguous, I think it will be difficult to argue that the BB terms of service apply as conditions to its acceptance.
My company does web-based sales, and we make sure that a checkbox is clicked by the user acknowledging the T&Cs that apply to the sale prior to the order being completed. Without something equally clear and unambiguous, I think it will be difficult to argue that the BB terms of service apply as conditions to its acceptance.
They pulled this within the first few hours of posting... I see this as a MISTAKE! Be happy with the thirty bucks you all -stole-. THey honestly didn't need to do this...
DELL on the other hand had the damn Altec Lansing refurbs up for like a week... I consider this a problem and was pissed off to the point that I no longer order from Dell.
DELL on the other hand had the damn Altec Lansing refurbs up for like a week... I consider this a problem and was pissed off to the point that I no longer order from Dell.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter