GHL On Sale - BRS

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaddyP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
BRS
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Last
@rtparty I had a lengthy reply but it's too late for all that. The TLDR is this, BRS not being in bed with Apex and Ecotech is better for the consumer, but being in bed with them is better for BRS. All current evidence points to them promoting their own/sister company products and dismissing competitor products. Only time will tell though, the mergers are all still relatively new (2021) in the grand scheme of things. I just hope that they promote products equally and don't continue down the path of product placement like they have been recently.
 
AS
SWherrey said:
Possibility there can be a difference from online shopping vs brick and mortar?
Click to expand...
Maybe. That's why i keep mentioning the UCC (but don't bother going to look at it and whether minnesota adopted any of it in this type of scenerio, also it may just apply universally-- i can't remember). The law is always struggling with applying law to online scenerios, and takes a very conservative approach--meaning unless there is a strong reason to upend precedent from say brick and mortar cases , they don't just because its an internet cases....

Here, the minnesota supreme court case i cited with a newspaper is on point. Guy advertised in a newspaper a price and was held to account when another guy showed up with money to buy. BRS went further even--they ran the credit cards..

Unless BRS can show third party hackers or something like that--and unless the law has changed (and i don't see any reason it would have in this type of scenerio)--i don't think BRS has much of leg to stand on..

That said, again, if i represented them, i might just say refund the money, cancel the orders, and see what people do. .. Just practical advice.....
 
Chewy.com
Judge Judy GIF
 
damsels are not mean said:
I can't wait to see this Judge Judy episode.

Client Challenge

smallbusiness.chron.com

Looks like you guys would have no case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
Google is not a very good source... and context is king.

"Imagine customers flooding into a store expecting a great deal because an advertisement said an item would be "$10.00" rather than "$1000.".... The question is whether the store is legally obligated to sell the item at the advertised price."

I agree that BRS would not have to agree to sell at any advertised price (even then they could be obligated depending on the wording of the advertisement!) .... But that's not the issue. The issue is whether BRS must honor the fact that they DID in fact sell at a certain price...


In other words, to use your example, people flooded the store and the store refused to sell. That can be okay, depending.

But in this example, people flooded BRS's store and the cashiers sold the items at the advertised price...

big difference.
 
Last edited:
Nutramar Foods
damsels are not mean said:
I can't wait to see this Judge Judy episode.

Client Challenge

smallbusiness.chron.com

Looks like you guys would have no case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
from the article you linked:
"Assuming that an incorrect advertised price is truly an error rather than an attempt to deceive, companies are only obligated to honor it if a customer makes an offer at that price and the company accepts it. This exchange creates a contract between buyer and seller."

By clicking purchase and entering my card information I made an offer, when they charged my card, they accepted. That's the case...

Edit: I did read further, and that's precisely what we've been discussing here... The unknown variables are if the disclaimer on a portion of the website no one likely travels to is enough, since it isn't anywhere in the buyer/checkout process. And, if (less discussed) Unilateral Mistake of Fact can be applied.

Edit 2: The argument (If I was willing to go to court over something like this) that I would discuss with my lawyer for the Unilateral Mistake of Fact would be that this pricing 'error' BRS is claiming occurred, happened during a points and sales event in which other products were reduced in price and extra points applied. I am unsure if that would be an argument worth pursuing, but if I am attempting to sue for something like this, it's certainly something I would at least point out/bring up.

As it stands, if they cancel my order I'd likely just sigh and move on because it's not worth the legal fees to me to pursue... but an argument could be made nonetheless...
 
Last edited:
JNalley said:
from the article you linked:
"Assuming that an incorrect advertised price is truly an error rather than an attempt to deceive, companies are only obligated to honor it if a customer makes an offer at that price and the company accepts it. This exchange creates a contract between buyer and seller."

By clicking purchase and entering my card information I made an offer, when they charged my card, they accepted. That's the case...
Click to expand...
that's close enough; BRS made the offer and it was a nice deal. The buyer accepted it by tendering payment. The contract was formed and finalized, BRS accepted payment, when BRS ran the credit card.
 
I went through this a few years ago with a different company and product.

By law(least here in NY) no money changes hands until an item is shipped, or ready to ship. Pending charges are just that, pending. No funds have been released to the retailer, it's simply a "promise to pay" when the items are ready to ship.

Your entire argument falls apart there. This is why on the internet companies are protected against errors like this, simply because money does not change hand(binding a contract), until an item is ready to ship, or has shipped(funds go from pending to actually charged).

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but this is how my case went. I did win my case only because money did change hands in my case. The comapnies lawer argued the same things you guys are here(I got a 300$ discount because the website had a wrong price, but no one caught it till the item shipped).
 
Nutramar Foods
homer1475 said:
I went through this a few years ago with a different company and product.

By law(least here in NY) no money changes hands until an item is shipped, or ready to ship. Pending charges are just that, pending. No funds have been released to the retailer, it's simply a "promise to pay" when the items are ready to ship.

Your entire argument falls apart there. This is why on the internet companies are protected against errors like this, simply because money does not change hand(binding a contract), until an item is ready to ship, or has shipped(funds go from pending to actually charged).

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but this is how my case went. I did win my case only because money did change hands in my case. The comapnies lawer argued the same things you guys are here(I got a 300$ discount because the website had a wrong price, but no one caught it till the item shipped).
Click to expand...
In a credit/debit card transaction, once a receipt is issued to a customer (In this case an invoice, with an order number, total, etc) the sale is considered finalized, all the other processing beyond that is automated, and out of our hands.


If this wasn't the case, it could lead to all kinds of things, when you leave Walmart, the transaction is still pending, until the end of the day when they batch process all of the payment verifications they've done for the day. This loophole of "Promise to Pay" you speak of would allow walmart or any other company to simply not process the transaction at the end of the day and say we stole the merchandise.

If you look up how a credit card transaction works, you will see that once a receipt is furnished that is a final sale, regardless of how it transacts after that.
 
Top Shelf Aquatics
Mywifeisgunnakillme said:
The act of BRS charging your card is completing the contract IMO. Anything after that is semantics.
Click to expand...
A transaction is not complete until the product that was purchased is delivered. A vendor taking my money and not sending me the product is not a complete transaction. Stores can legally cancel orders for various reasons.
 
PilotOfSubmarines said:
Trying to cite law in which BRS is going to have fill these orders. This is the best thing to happen in 2022 so far.

Happy Eddie Murphy GIF by Laff


Next best thing will be when they cancel the orders and people are angry about it.
Click to expand...

The only question is will there be more outrage if they cancel the sales from those that took advantage or if they approve them from those that missed out?
 
Top Shelf Aquatics
You folks are not getting this stuff. You're all nuts if think you're getting this stuff over a computer error.
 
JoshH said:
Not sure how it isn't directly related to this. If they don't honour the posted, ADVERTISED price. This fits False advertising to a T.

I am also not sure how you link me posting something you yourself said was about CONSUMER protection and think it in any way was about protecting a business? But maybe with my lack of education, I just can't connect the dots there... ;Hilarious
Click to expand...
Unfortunatley..it is not. False advertising must have INTENT to falsely advertise. This was not intent. This was a mistake.
 
Ecoscape Reef Rock
Scorpius said:
You folks are not getting this stuff. You're all nuts if think you're getting this stuff over a computer error.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be completely shocking if they just honored the sales, but nobody who took advantage should feel legally entitled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
BRS

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%

  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%

  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%

  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
See comments…

New Posts

Dinkins Aquatic Gardens
Tidal Gardens
TCK Corals
Deltec
World Wide Corals
Top Shelf Aquatics
Chewy.com
Nutramar Foods
New Posts
Back
Top