GHL On Sale - BRS

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaddyP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I know of no such regulation. i certainly have been charged well before shipping.

The disclaimer not being a term at checkout is my whole point.
 
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.
You were stating that somehow there has to be some kind of reminder at checkout for the stores policies to be held to be valid. Thats why. The person buying the coat didn't sign a paper agreeing to receive credit only - or a restocking fee. The person checking them out didn't say - please make sure you read the sign on the wall about returns.

I was asking you whether not receiving a notice at checkout is really a requirement - for stores to have policies that affect purchases, etc.

BTW - another example - having more to do with reefing - if you order an aquarium - and its delivered by freight - there is a clause that you have to sign saying the equipment, etc is in good condition (no damage) - if you sign this without looking at the. aquarium (un-crating it, un-packing it) etc - you have no recourse against the aquarium manufacturer or the freight company.
 
But they did advertise at a price that they might not have been allowed to in the first place.
Yes, but this would fall into a completely different case between BRS and GHL and would hold no bearing on the rest of what's being discussed here. I suspect GHL would have a case (regardless of whether the sales were completed) to go after BRS for breaking the terms of their MAP agreement. Now, if that case happened first (extremely unlikely), the outcome of that case could help or destroy what we're talking about here. But since the consumer>retail would likely happen first, it might just set a future precedent on the matter.

If the court found in favor of GHL, for instance, it would legitimize the fiasco.
If the court found in favor of BRS, it would likely mean the courts recognized an error with some sort of reasonable certainty.

All that is speculation though...
 
You were stating that somehow there has to be some kind of reminder at checkout for the stores policies to be held to be valid. Thats why. The person buying the coat didn't sign a paper agreeing to receive credit only - or a restocking fee. The person checking them out didn't say - please make sure you read the sign on the wall about returns.

I was asking you whether not receiving a notice at checkout is really a requirement - for stores to have policies that affect purchases, etc.

BTW - another example - having more to do with reefing - if you order an aquarium - and its delivered by freight - there is a clause that you have to sign saying the equipment, etc is in good condition (no damage) - if you sign this without looking at the. aquarium (un-crating it, un-packing it) etc - you have no recourse against the aquarium manufacturer or the freight company.

You're lost. I am not a law school.
 
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!! :)

It was an unintentional error. They will let you cancel (I did).

Yes, lawyers are the truly unethical we should have been flogging in this thread
 
I dont think that way. Not a Marxist. Im just analyzing contract law.
I am actually not pointing at anything you are saying. I could easily follow and understand YOUR logic. I dont agree with the point you are trying to make (morally) but I can very much agree that it is a legal opinion that could be debated based upon facts and circumstances and is a valid legal argument that could be made and defended.
 
It was an unintentional error. They will let you cancel (I did).

Yes, lawyers are the truly unethical we should have been flogging in this thread
Dont kill the messenger... i dont make law. I just follow it.

Contact law is simple to avoid disputes. Dont make these makes and companies are fine.
 
I know of no such regulation. i certainly have been charged well before shipping.

The disclaimer not being a term at checkout is my whole point.
You are correct. The issue comes into play when the merchant does not ship the item within the promised time. You are entitled to a refund. So - lets say you ordered the GHL controller for $10 - and paid for next day shipping - if you don't get it the next day - and your card was charged you're due a refund.

I mean - look at Ebay, as another example. Lets say you have an auction for an art print - and your dog tears it up. Even if there are 50 bids (and even after the auction - and the item is paid for) - you can cancel the auction (and issue a refund) - there is no rule that you have to supply that print at that price
 
It was an unintentional error. They will let you cancel (I did).

Yes, lawyers are the truly unethical we should have been flogging in this thread
Nah...I wouldnt go that far. There is no such thing as black and white law. There is always a fact and circumstance that is different about each case. I dont hate lawyers at all as I understand how they think. I actually think very similar to how a lawyer does and I value their thoughts.
 
None of the cases you posted related to pricing errors.
Again:

Screenshot_20220102-113204_DuckDuckGo.jpg


Trying reading the synopsis. Dont even need to read the rest.
 
You are correct. The issue comes into play when the merchant does not ship the item within the promised time. You are entitled to a refund. So - lets say you ordered the GHL controller for $10 - and paid for next day shipping - if you don't get it the next day - and your card was charged you're due a refund.

I mean - look at Ebay, as another example. Lets say you have an auction for an art print - and your dog tears it up. Even if there are 50 bids (and even after the auction - and the item is paid for) - you can cancel the auction (and issue a refund) - there is no rule that you have to supply that print at that price
Can and Legally are two different things, and I think that's what mywifeisgunnakillme is trying to put across to everyone. Legally, this can be argued in a court of law with a better than fair chance of winning due to how simple and strict contract law is. As with any court of law, there is also the possibility of losing, but the details of this case make it, in his educated opinion, worth pursuing if anyone wanted to. I'm too lazy and don't have time for all that, so personally, if they cancel it, I say "Man that sucks" and move on. It's no sweat off my brow.
 
Again:

Screenshot_20220102-113204_DuckDuckGo.jpg


Trying reading the synopsis. Dont even need to read the rest.

I'm giving up because you clearly don't get it; you are only seeing what you want to see in the hope to prove your argument.

That wasn't a pricing error; it was a specific statement (or whatever, I don't care for the legalese) that if the gentlemen was one of the first 3 to enter the store then they would sell him the item for $1. He was, and they didn't. It wasn't a pricing error and the store didn't argue that. It was a specific offer that they refused to honor, hence why he won (half of) his case.
 
I am actually not pointing at anything you are saying. I could easily follow and understand YOUR logic. I dont agree with the point you are trying to make (morally) but I can very much agree that it is a legal opinion that could be debated based upon facts and circumstances and is a valid legal argument that could be made and defended.
Thanks, i really think the issues here are not complicated. Its a curiousity to me how this will play out though.

The only thing that makes me question my analysis is if there is specific UCC provisions, or Minnesota law, that gives BRS an out. I aint got time to look into that. Too boring to review.
 
If the buyer is refunded, what exactly is the loss or damage?
 
Can and Legally are two different things, and I think that's what mywifeisgunnakillme is trying to put across to everyone. Legally, this can be argued in a court of law with a better than fair chance of winning due to how simple and strict contract law is. As with any court of law, there is also the possibility of losing, but the details of this case make it, in his educated opinion, worth pursuing if anyone wanted to. I'm too lazy and don't have time for all that, so personally, if they cancel it, I say "Man that sucks" and move on. It's no sweat off my brow.
If you read the Minnesota retail statute - it states (to my reading - paraphrased) - Retailers are required to honor prices. And if they WILLFULLY misplace items and do not correct the error - that is a problem:

"
Sec. 4.

(1) A person shall not knowingly advertise the availability of a consumer item for sale at retail at a sale or special price, or as being reduced in price by an amount or proportion, unless the advertisement meets all of the following:
(a) It includes the dates that item is available at the advertised price, or the quantity available at the advertised price.
(b) If applicable, it states that the item is available at that price only as long as the advertised quantity lasts or as long as quantities or supplies last.
(c) If there is a limitation on the quantity available of a consumer item to each customer, that limitation is clearly disclosed.
(2) If a person advertises a consumer item at a specific price that is not indicated to be a special, sale, or reduced price, the advertiser shall do 1 of the following:
(a) Make the consumer item available at the advertised price for not less than 5 days after the date the consumer item was last advertised. If the item is not available for that period of time, the requirements of subsection (3) apply. The advertiser is not required to make the consumer item available nor fulfill the requirements of subsection (3) if the unavailability of the consumer item is due to a governmental action, a plant closing, or an act of God and if the specific cause of the unavailability of the consumer item is posted conspicuously for review by the consumer.
(b) Indicate in the advertisement the dates the consumer item is available at the advertised price. If the item is not available for those dates, the requirements of subsection (3) apply.
(c) Indicate in the advertisement the quantity of the consumer item that is available at the advertised price and include in the advertisement that the consumer item is available at the advertised price only as long as the stated quantity lasts.
(3) If an advertisement under this section does not state the quantity of a consumer item available or meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2)(c), and if the consumer item cannot be sold at the advertised price throughout the advertised period of sale, the advertiser shall make available to the customer a written guarantee to deliver under the advertised conditions the consumer item at a future date stated in the guarantee, or when notified by the advertiser that the item is available. If the advertised consumer item cannot be obtained to satisfy the condition of the guarantee, the advertiser may provide a similar consumer item of equal or greater monetary value.
(4) If an advertiser elects in a written guarantee under subsection (3) to notify a consumer when a consumer item will be available, the notification of availability shall take place within 90 days after the guarantee is given. After the notice of availability is given, the advertiser shall hold the consumer item for delivery to the customer for at least 7 days, except the advertiser is required to hold the consumer item for only 2 days if it is a perishable item."
 
Again:

Screenshot_20220102-113204_DuckDuckGo.jpg


Trying reading the synopsis. Dont even need to read the rest.
I believe that I would be able to successfully defend against this argument. One of the core issues here is that there were terms and conditions that were contrary to the plain language of the offer (ie first come first serve). GMSS had a specific purpose for their offer and their intention was straight forward but their language was ambiguous / missing terms which under contract law must be determined to the non writer of the contract. A pricing mistake does not signify intent and changes the facts of the case enough that this would not be on point.
 
Thanks, i really think the issues here are not complicated. Its a curiousity to me how this will play out though.

The only thing that makes me question my analysis is if there is specific UCC provisions, or Minnesota law, that gives BRS an out. I aint got time to look into that. Too boring to review.
In California - and some other states - its somewhat different. Which is likely why BRS states that the law of MN applies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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%
Back
Top