Sounds like something from ww.thespark.com They have automatic b.s. generating scripts to help you become "more intelligent" sounding w/o any real content. As is the case here.
For any naysayers and "Wounded Monitor" child haters. Please read the following letter to the Texas AG/BB/BBB, it contains almost all the pertainet details concerning this deal, the legal stuff, etc.
Dear Sirs:
The following was filed online to the Texas Attorney General. This is being sent via U.S. mail with attachments.
On February 6, 2002 Best Buy placed an advertisement for a VisionTek Xtasy Geforce4 Ti 4600 128MB DDR AGP Graphics Accelerator for a special pre-order price of 129.99. In accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) this clearly constitutes an invitation by Best Buy for customers to make an offer to purchase at the above stated price. I clearly extended an offer to buy at that stated price by ordering the item and provided consideration through my personal information including my address, email, and credit card number. I understood that the item would not be delivered until March 4th and was willing to pay early based upon the advertised statement of ?the savings is a $200.00 value?. Best Buy clearly accepted my offer to buy through acceptance of my personal information, sending a confirmation email with an order number (i.e. Order Number 2132###), and placing a reserve on my available credit line. The above information clearly constitutes the formation of a binding contract.
On February 7, 2002 Best Buy sent an email informing me that ?a recent systems error? allowed me to purchase the card and ?due to the nature of this error, we have canceled your order for this item?. Further investigation on my part revealed that it was not a ?systems error?. In fact several customers called to confirm the price prior to ordering the item over the phone. In addition, the item was also advertised in many of your stores in which people were given rain checks. Canceling my order would be a breach of contract. In this email Best Buy also offered me a chance to purchase the said video card for $399.99. This could be construed as a ?bait and switch?.
This email appeared to be an attempt on Best Buy?s part to negate our original binding contract by reference to their Terms of Service (TOS). I proceeded to read the TOS, which was linked in the email reply from the customer care team. In summary, it appeared that the TOS was a disclaimer that attempted to absolve Best Buy from being held accountable for anything stated on their web site. According to the Federal Trade Commission Act that clearly states, ?Disclaimers and disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. That is, consumers must be able to notice, read or hear, and understand the information. Still, a disclaimer or disclosure alone usually is not enough to remedy a false or deceptive claim?. Prior to the formation of our contract I was not made aware of Best Buy?s TOS nor were the TOS conspicuous in any manner. I did not agree to Best Buy?s terms of service prior to entering the online store nor was I made aware of or agreed to the terms of service prior to my offer to buy and Best Buy?s acceptance of my offer. Even if any of the previous statements occurred Best Buy?s TOS do not remedy a false or deceptive claim.
February 12th, 2002, I received another email apparently from Best Buy offering to resolve this situation with an offer of a $30 online credit expiring February 28, 2002. Further investigation of this email noted that it actually came from
www.cheetahmail.com which is a ?marketing firm?. Another words, Best Buy sold/gave my personal information to a Spam company. Thus breaking another FTC guideline concerning companies? use of personal information. Best Buy gave no ?opt out? method available to its online customers. Needless to say, I did not use their coupon. My price for my personal information alone is worth over $30!
One might think Best Buy purposely mispriced the card in order to obtain my personal information, which in turn they can sell to marketers. Offering me a $30 credit is also an enticement to shop on their site, thus generating more sales. If the so-called ?price error? was something like $39.99 or $3.99 instead of the corrected price of $399.99 I would tend to understand that it was a price error.
Granted that all companies on occasion make pricing errors. For example, if I saw a new car advertised for $4,000 in the newspaper and decided to go into the dealer to purchase it. Upon my arrival the sales people say that price was in error, I would of course understand. But, if the sales person agreed to sell me the car and I obtain financing for it, we have a legal binding deal. And if subsequently proceed to take possession of the car and a manager stops me before hand and tells me that the deal is off because the car was mispriced. This would be a breach of contract and a misrepresentation of the goods the dealer was offering. This is the case with Best Buy.
What do you believe to be a fair resolution to this matter?
Best Buy should honor my original contract in compliance with FTC/UCC rules.
Best Buy should have mechanisms to protect itself from ?price errors?. Here are my suggestions to that end:
1) Best Buy needs to tie their web site in with purchasing. Therefore, items priced lower than what they buy them for are caught up front.
2) They need to have a real time tool to tell them quickly when any single item is ordered at a rate over some threshold. Therefore, catch the price error sooner.
3) Tell the user up front about the TOS. Make them agree to it. Perhaps during the order process as well.
4) Change the order state to ?pending verification? for a fixed (no longer than 1 to 2 hours) prior to changing state to ?processing? or ?on order?. Explain to users that this verification stage is to both check credit card and verify price. Do not put a ?hold? or charge on customer?s credit card until the state change.
5) Have an automatic method of correcting, canceling, and informing customers of price errors once they occur.
Supporting documents enclosed:
1) Printout of my original order dated February 6, 2002 showing state as ?on order?
2) Letter from my bank showing a credit hold from Best Buy.
3) All email from Best Buy concerning this.
4) Copies of sections of FTC and UCC web site pages that back my case.
=========================================================================================
Legal predicant for BB's POS TOS:
Ticketmaster Corp., et al. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
Snippage:
In defending this claim, Ticketmaster makes reference to the "shrink-wrap license" cases, where the packing on the outside of the CD stated that opening the package constitutes adherence to the license agreement (restricting republication) contained therein. This has been held to be enforceable. That is not the same as this case because the "shrink-wrap license agreement" is open and obvious and in fact hard to miss. Many web sites make you click on "agree" to the terms and conditions before going on, but Ticketmaster does not. Further the terms and conditions are set forth so that the customer needs to scroll down the home page to find and read them. Many customers instead are likely to proceed to the event page of interest rather than reading the "small print".
It cannot be said that merely putting the terms and conditions in this fashion necessarily creates a contract with anyone using the web site. The motion is granted with leave to amend in case there are facts showing [defendant] Tickets' knowledge of them plus facts showing implied agreement to them.
Facebook
Twitter