GHL On Sale - BRS

[rtparty]

Here's how this will actually play out....

BRS will ship the stuff, maybe put a post in here about it, and move on.

GHL won't say a thing because they aren't about to upset BRS and they didn't lose any money. GHL already has BRS's money at their agreed price.

I highly doubt BRS had hundreds and hundreds of these items in stock. Like everyone else, GHL is having supply chain issues especially in Germany.

It might cost BRS some money but it will be a tax write off in the end for them.

Case closed.

 

[MnFish1]

BRS does not have additional terms of contract at checkout... it just has price, shipping, tax, etc. Thus, the disclamer is thus not a part of the contract.

"Please take a few minutes to review these Terms & Conditions. Your purchase of products from us constitutes your agreement to follow these Terms & Conditions and to be bound by them.

Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to update or modify these Terms & Conditions at any time without prior notice. For this reason, we encourage you to review these Terms & Conditions whenever you purchase products from us or use our website."

 

[MnFish1]

I wonder how caselaw would treat someone selling something they are not legally allowed to sell in the first place at the price they posted. The contractual arrangement BRS has with GHL and MAP pricing prevents them from advertising and selling at this price. Havent contracts been broken because they were based upon something not allowable in the first place?

I wonder how it would be if person x bought a $100 piece of equipment - and accidentally sent $1000.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

"Please take a few minutes to review these Terms & Conditions. Your purchase of products from us constitutes your agreement to follow these Terms & Conditions and to be bound by them.

Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to update or modify these Terms & Conditions at any time without prior notice. For this reason, we encourage you to review these Terms & Conditions whenever you purchase products from us or use our website."

If thats at checkout then BRS has a good argument if the terms state they can void the transaction based on pricing error.

 

[MnFish1]

Here's how this will actually play out....

BRS will ship the stuff, maybe put a post in here about it, and move on.

GHL won't say a thing because they aren't about to upset BRS and they didn't lose any money. GHL already has BRS's money at their agreed price.

I highly doubt BRS had hundreds and hundreds of these items in stock. Like everyone else, GHL is having supply chain issues especially in Germany.

It might cost BRS some money but it will be a tax write off in the end for them.

Case closed.

I'll take that bet:

I bet BRS will apologize, refund the money and give some kind of 'reward points', or something else to 'make it good'.

 

[FishyFishFish]

Please take a few minutes to review these Terms & Conditions. Your purchase of products from us constitutes your agreement to follow these Terms & Conditions and to be bound by them.

From the BRS terms and conditions.

I used to own a webshop. The legal advice I received (from the provider of the web store - a global professional in web stores) was simply that the terms need to be on the website and accessible. If the terms were provided and the customer didn't read them, it was not considered to be the fault of the retailer or website provider. Whilst a checkbox could be provided to confirm that the terms had been read, this was a safety net and wasn't actually required.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

From the BRS terms and conditions.

I used to own a webshop. The legal advice I received (from the provider of the web store - a global professional in web stores) was simply that the terms need to be on the website and accessible. If the terms were provided and the customer didn't read them, it was not considered to be the fault of the retailer or website provider. Whilst a checkbox could be provided to confirm that the terms had been read, this was a safety net and wasn't actually required.

That's bad advice.

 

[JNalley]

I wonder how caselaw would treat someone selling something they are not legally allowed to sell in the first place at the price they posted. The contractual arrangement BRS has with GHL and MAP pricing prevents them from advertising and selling at this price. Havent contracts been broken because they were based upon something not allowable in the first place?

Ammend that to advertising. BRS is actually allowed to sell at whatever price they want, they just use MAP as a shield. All other forms of retail skirt MAP by "See price in cart".

 

[EpipelagicReef]

That's bad advice.

I'm sure Magento has it figured out.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I wonder how it would be if person x bought a $100 piece of equipment - and accidentally sent $1000.

I believe they would legally be required to send it back. The arms length agreement was for $100.

 

[MnFish1]

That's bad advice.

So - here's another example. Lets say I go into a clothing store - and Buy a coat. I check out. I find out later - that its too small. I go back to the store - to return it. I have the receipt, and its lets say an hour after I bought it - its in perfect condition.

But - on the wall there is a sign. Returns will only be given in store credit - or Returns are subject to a $25 stocking fee. I say - but I dont want a credit - and I didn't see the sign. Who is going to win the court case.

To me the people that bought these 'deals' have no damages - if their money is returned to them in full. (Or they get the equipment) Right?

 

[MONTANTK]

I'll take that bet:

I bet BRS will apologize, refund the money and give some kind of 'reward points', or something else to 'make it good'.

This. I asked BRS if they would price match something last week and they agreed and also gave me an extra $80 (knowingly)

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

"Please take a few minutes to review these Terms & Conditions. Your purchase of products from us constitutes your agreement to follow these Terms & Conditions and to be bound by them.

Bulkreefsupply.com reserves the right to update or modify these Terms & Conditions at any time without prior notice. For this reason, we encourage you to review these Terms & Conditions whenever you purchase products from us or use our website."

I just ordered F Aiptasia at BRS to check. No such terms or disclaimer appeared or was agreed to when i placed my order....

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

Ammend that to advertising. BRS is actually allowed to sell at whatever price they want, they just use MAP as a shield. All other forms of retail skirt MAP by "See price in cart".

Oh i agree with you on this. I have always wondered why they didnt do it. But they did advertise at a price that they might not have been allowed to in the first place. I think this is going to land on a few items:

1. Was this an intentionally misleading pricing or an error (ie false advertising)
2. Are the terms and conditions part of the sale process
3. Was this a completed transaction (ie was money tendered and specific performance created)
4. Does either party have the right to cancel prior contract execution.
5. Was this a legal transaction to begin with

Gosh...and people wonder why we hate lawyers!!

 

[MnFish1]

I believe they would legally be required to send it back. The arms length agreement was for $100.

Oh I agree. Its just funny when the consumer makes a mistake - its automatically - the company has to return it. When its teh other way around - people seem to feel differently. To me - the only obligation for BRS is to make the customer whole i.e. a refund.

 

[FishyFishFish]

That's bad advice.

I'll take the advice of a webshop-specific professional but thanks anyway.


You still haven't posted any case studies related solely to incorrect pricing. I'm not sure how someone buying a car and having a problem with the contract a year later (unrelated to pricing) is relevant to web shop pricing errors.

Show me one case study that is a simple pricing error case and I will accept you are right; there are millions of transactions every year and presumably thousands of pricing errors, so surely there must be at least one?

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

So - here's another example. Lets say I go into a clothing store - and Buy a coat. I check out. I find out later - that its too small. I go back to the store - to return it. I have the receipt, and its lets say an hour after I bought it - its in perfect condition.

But - on the wall there is a sign. Returns will only be given in store credit - or Returns are subject to a $25 stocking fee. I say - but I dont want a credit - and I didn't see the sign. Who is going to win the court case.

To me the people that bought these 'deals' have no damages - if their money is returned to them in full. (Or they get the equipment) Right?

I have no idea what returns have to do with purchasing. The purchase contract is silent on returns so the company can do what it wants within the law.

 

[MnFish1]

I just ordered F Aiptasia at BRS to check. No such terms or disclaimer appeared or was agreed to when i placed my order....

I ordered some Nori - and I saw the same thing - I'm not sure it makes any difference. You have to go by the terms and conditions of the website. BTW - it is also my understanding - that by some law (maybe you can fill us in) - that online retailers aren't allowed to finalize a credit card charge before the item is actually shipped.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

Oh I agree. Its just funny when the consumer makes a mistake - its automatically - the company has to return it. When its teh other way around - people seem to feel differently. To me - the only obligation for BRS is to make the customer whole i.e. a refund.

I have noticed that a lot in here: Heads I win, Tails you lose. Stick it to the man because they have more. Very intriguing watching how people think.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I'll take the advice of a webshop-specific professional but thanks anyway.


You still haven't posted any case studies related solely to incorrect pricing. I'm not sure how someone buying a car and having a problem with the contract a year later (unrelated to pricing) is relevant to web shop pricing errors.

Show me one case study that is a simple pricing error case and I will accept you are right; there are millions of transactions every year and presumably thousands of pricing errors, so surely there must be at least one?

A case "study"? The Minnesota caselaw i cited was exactly that.