B&H not honoring the advertised price?

MDJAK wrote in post #17034474
While Henry answered the question, errors happen. Suppose a store placed an ad for a $4,000 item and by a printer's error or otherwise it was listed at $400. Do you think you should get it for $400 if they catch the error before shipping the item?

It would be nice if the world worked that way.

Sure, who would expect to get something at 10% of its cost due to an error? But again, in this case, the item was 85% of its cost due to an error. A 15% price reduction is commonplace. One wouldn't think that this is an error and they are getting away with something, it seems reasonable. That is a tougher question isn't it?

Not really. An error is an error. You can think what you wish. Fact is, if the store made an error in listing the price, they don't have to honor it. That's in every advertisement circular from time immemorial.

MDJAK wrote in post #17034542
Not really. An error is an error. You can think what you wish. Fact is, if the store made an error in listing the price, they don't have to honor it. That's in every advertisement circular from time immemorial.

It wasn't like that all the time, nor at all stores. For example, even Best Buy, if an item was on a shelf with a posted price, they either had a policy they would honor it, or they had to by law, but they would then go pull the price tag off the shelf to fix it. This happened a ton of times after sales would end, and the staff didn't pull all the sale prices off the shelves. I believe this still happens, but can check with my Best Buy contact. This is now the exception than the norm, but it hasn't always been that way. We the consumers have allowed more latitude for the retailers to make mistakes, and we live with it.

So as much as we all would like to tout absolutes, there isn't any. Some stores will do different things, online or at a B&M.

You are correct. But a price in a store and one in an advertisement is different. I can remember as far back to when I was a kid, and that's eons ago, supermarket circulars always said not responsible for typos.

Where I live, since the advent of scanners at registers, it's the law, as you say, that if an item rings up higher than its actual price they give you ten percent off, up to ten bucks.

No one honors price errors. If you get away with it your lucky*LOL*

MDJAK wrote in post #17035051
You are correct. But a price in a store and one in an advertisement is different. I can remember as far back to when I was a kid, and that's eons ago, supermarket circulars always said not responsible for typos.

Where I live, since the advent of scanners at registers, it's the law, as you say, that if an item rings up higher than its actual price they give you ten percent off, up to ten bucks.

In Pa I believe the pricing on the SHELF has to match what it rings out at the register.

If people would learn to slow down and read, alot of companies have this issue under the 'fine print'.

etc...

If it was me and they refunded my money right away I'd just say shucks, so much for a great deal. If it happened more than once, then I'd get annoyed. I've had nothing but positive dealings with BH so just one isolated incident wouldn't sour me from doing future business with them.

klr.b wrote in post #17034092
I've done this. I've had terrible experiences with Adorama in the past. .... If someone asks me for advice on products......If they ask about Adorama, I tell them my stories.

I'd be grateful if you could tell me what happened: Helen@adorama.com

MDJAK wrote in post #17034474
While Henry answered the question, errors happen. Suppose a store placed an ad for a $4,000 item and by a printer's error or otherwise it was listed at $400. Do you think you should get it for $400 if they catch the error before shipping the item?

That would probably fall under the equitable doctrine of unilateral mistakes. In http://www.law.washing​ton.edu/WJLTA/Issues/1 see "Oops! The Legal Consequences Of and Solutions To Online Pricing Errors"

In part: When online retailers make honest, good-faith pricing mistakes that result in huge losses to the benefit of opportunistic online shoppers, their mistake could be grounds for rescinding the unfavorable contract under the doctrine of unilateral mistake. One party’s mistake can make the contract voidable when the mistake concerns a basic assumption on which the contract was formed and has a material effect on the agreement that is adverse to that party. In addition, the adversely affected party must establish that ... the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable ... The adversely affected retailer must also show that enforcing the contract would be unconscionable ... The contract, if enforced as formed, needs to cause hardship to the adversely affected party. Among other things, courts will consider whether the sale would cause the retailer a loss, rather than merely earn a diminished profit ... Rescinding the contract is the only available remedy under unilateral mistake; it is not a basis for reformation ... the retailer must cancel the customer’s order and re-offer the product at the actual price.

MDJAK wrote in post #17038305
.


As the store was so unscrupulous, they didn't last in business long.

How were they unscrupulous? They made a mistake, they weren't doing anything dodgy.

If you had gone in asking for the cheaper one, but being given the more expensive one, then they contacted you asking for the difference in price, I can see that as being an unscrupulous practice, getting people to buy a more expensive model than they wanted.

But ou ASKED for the more expensive one, they undercharged you for it and merely asked you to pay the correct price, the one you had expected to pay in the first place before they made the mistake and you tried to cheat them out of the extra money by lying.

At the end of the day, you got the computer you wanted for $500 less than you should have paid for it. If they didn't last in business long it wasn't for being unscrupulous, it was probably for being idiots who made mistakes like this and it cost them too much money when customers were not honest enough to point out the mistake (or admit to it when asked).

There is only one unscrupulous party in this story and it isn't the store.

I knew someone with a reading level of a kindergartner would come up with that.

They were unscrupulous in many, many ways, had been fined by the county and city for their deceptive practices. That eventually drove their customer base away and they went out of business.

I wasn't stating what happened in my situation was unscrupulous on their part (other than blatantly lying about not having the new model so they could dump the old models). I said I was dishonest.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

MDJAK wrote in post #17038327
I knew someone with a reading level of a kindergartner would come up with that.

They were unscrupulous in many, many ways, had been fined by the county and city for their deceptive practices. That eventually drove their customer base away and they went out of business.

I wasn't stating what happened in my situation was unscrupulous on their part. I said I was dishonest.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well, I went to a grammar school and spent 22 years working as a librarian, but hey, what does that say about my ability to read.

You gave us a story, which told us of a specific incident and ended with "as the store was so unscrupulous", which written as it was relates the comment to that story. Of course, I should have used my mental power of mind reading, to know about all the other things they have allegedly done and which you say WERE unscrupulous, sadly these weren't part of the story you related so couldn't be taken into account.

As you yourself said in that last post, what they did in that story wasn't unscrupulous on their part. So why is it surprising that I asked for clarification on how they were unscrupulous, because IN THAT STORY they weren't?

I apologise for my kindergarten level reading, it does unfortunately only allow me to read what is actually written. I am sure as my reading develops I will learn to pick up on all the background facts that aren't actually mentioned. Sadly until then, I will have to go by what is written.

I thought the point was that MDJAK believed the proprietor lied to him about not having the new model because he was trying to clear out inventory of the older model. I also took it that MDJAK was able to rationalize his actions to some degree based on that belief.