If you evade rules on promotions, you're a thief

[Craig234]

I dare you to post this on slickdeals or fatwallet

I'd be happy to, right below my telling them they owe use tax on internet purchases.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I'd be happy to, right below my telling them they owe use tax on internet purchases.

Oh wow that made me literally laugh out loud.


If I buy a coupon intended for someone else on EBay and use it for my purchase is that theft?

 

[dud]

I believe that's called capitalism.

Don't get the OP riled up ... he's a lawyer (or thinks he is).

 

[Gillbot]

But if the buyer doesn't have access to said program they are able to buy the item at a discount compared to full retail. Looks like a win win to me.

see below, discounts are RARELY found.....

Problem is that rarely is the item sold at a discount. It's BOUGHT at a discount, then resold at or very close to full retail. The only one winning here is the profiteer.

 

[Craig234]

If I buy a coupon intended for someone else on EBay and use it for my purchase is that theft?

All depends if the terms of the coupon allow it to be transferred.

If not, yes, it's theft.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Extreme couponers must be your nemesis.

 

[Craig234]

Extreme couponers must be your nemesis.

Not at all - coupons used legitimately are great.

 

[lothar]

All depends if the terms of the coupon allow it to be transferred.

If not, yes, it's theft.

Absolutely false.

A manufacturer doesn't have to be explicit in saying that "This coupon is transferable!!!" on the terms of the coupon. So long as the terms of the coupon does not state that it is "non-transferable", it can be implied that the coupon can indeed be transferred.

Cliffs:
1.) If the terms state that it's transferable, then it's transferable.
2.) If the terms doesn't say anything about whether it can be transferred or not, then it can indeed be transferred.
3.) If the terms state that it's non-transferable, then it's non-transferable.

 

[Craig234]

Absolutely false.

A manufacturer doesn't have to be explicit in saying that "This coupon is transferable!!!" on the terms of the coupon. So long as the terms of the coupon does not state that it is "non-transferable", it can be implied that the coupon can indeed be transferred.

Cliffs:
1.) If the terms state that it's transferable, then it's transferable.
2.) If the terms doesn't say anything about whether it can be transferred or not, then it can indeed be transferred.
3.) If the terms state that it's non-transferable, then it's non-transferable.

You're confused. If the bottom line is that the terms allow transfer, explicitily or implicitly, then yes it does. If it doesn't allow transfer, explicitly or implicitly, then it doesn't.

 

[dud]

I'd be happy to, right below my telling them they owe use tax on internet purchases.

Posting in a Craig234 thread ...


I am struggling to decide who is more entertaining ... Craig234, mammador or Alky.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sometimes companies have promotions with limits, typically '1 offer per customer'.

If you evade the liimit such as by creating multiple e-mail accounts and pretending to be different people to get multiple items against the rules, you are stealing.

It's their right to put the limit - and evading that is dishonest, the same way as any other dishonest activity such as shoplifting or switching price tags on an item.

It's funny how it doesn't 'seem' the same to some people, but it is.

It's all about dishonesty to get a deal the seller did not offer. If they wanted to sell more than one to you at the price, they would.

Just a PSA for people who haven't throught it through and realized they're stealing.

Let's make it simple: You can get a $5 off Home Depot coupon if you sign up for their newsletter. You have 3 email address' so you sign up all 3 and get 3 coupons.

Are you honestly saying you're too good for that?

Whatever, enjoy being crushed by huge ass corporations more and more

 

[GoodRevrnd]

YOU WOULDN'T CLAIM TWO MANUFACTURER'S REBATES ON A CAR.


caps

 

[BarkingGhostar]

You're violating the spirit of the agreement - that's nothing to be proud of - but it's a bad rule for them to use, unless 'visit' is defined, because you are technically following it.

I never suggested I was proud. But I don't feel guilty, either.

BTW, I actually asked in advance and they smiled and said I wasn't doing anything wrong. So there!

 

[ImpulsE69]

YOU WOULDN'T CLAIM TWO MANUFACTURER'S REBATES ON A CAR.


caps

Yes I would.

 

[Soundmanred]

cuckooclockwithcrazylookingbirdpoppingout.jpg

 

[Craig234]

I never suggested I was proud. But I don't feel guilty, either.

BTW, I actually asked in advance and they smiled and said I wasn't doing anything wrong. So there!

Well, I'd say there was notning wrong with it then - they just did the rules badly.

 

[Craig234]

Let's make it simple: You can get a $5 off Home Depot coupon if you sign up for their newsletter. You have 3 email address' so you sign up all 3 and get 3 coupons.

Are you honestly saying you're too good for that?

Whatever, enjoy being crushed by huge ass corporations more and more

If the terms don't allowi it, it's theft.

 

[Craig234]

Posting in a Craig234 thread ...


I am struggling to decide who is more entertaining ... Craig234, mammador or Alky.

The thread really is not designed for entertainment.

You sound a bit like a street criminal who laughs when told rape is wrong.

Of course, rape is a lot worse than stealing a few dollars from a company, the point is, it's the same mentality of not having morals and not caring about right and wrong.

Being told right and wrong is 'entertainment' to people who don't care about what's right.

 

[KeithTalent]

Completely agree.

KT

 

[ThinClient]

No, it's not. It's called theft and fraud.

You sound angry, Dad.