GHL On Sale - BRS

[JohnnyKnuckles]

@JosephRyan take notice: @Mywifeisgunnakillme made me agree. Why? (Specht v. Netscape Communications. Corp. (2002): Placing an innocuous link at the bottom of your home page where the visitor has to scroll down to find it (and may not notice the link) won’t provide proper notice. (Specht v. Netscape Communications. Corp. (2002). Notice needs to be prominent and stand out so the average website user can’t miss it. Your visitors shouldn’t have to “stumble upon” a link to any of your website agreements.

I think Antonio Brown just got word of this thread and you giving in. Dude took his shirt pads/shirt off and left the fireld during the game. He is so passionate about saltwater fish and you not holding the Bertram position

 

[JNalley]

Sorry guys, I was giving my daughter a bath... what'd I miss? (j/k I'll go back and read).

 

[Chrisv.]

All of this case law being discussed is fascinating. Are the screenshots from the legal sites that have been posted being shared in violation of copyright laws?!

...but...if my new tank has a low ammonia and my nitrite test kit reads high on an API kit, what should I do?

Is live rock better than dry rock?

METAL HALIDES ARE KING.

 

[JNalley]

All of this case law being discussed is fascinating. Are the screenshots from the legal sites that have been posted being shared in violation of copyright laws?!

...but...if my new tank has a low ammonia and my nitrite test kit reads high on an API kit, what should I do?

Is live rock better than dry rock?

METAL HALIDES ARE KING.

 

[JNalley]

Yea I got covid 4 days ago so past few days kinda blurry.

Oof, I know this is your second time around and this time is much better, but speedy recovery none-the-less!

 

[Chrisv.]

Let's not forget this critical element of the bulk reef TOS:

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

[JNalley]

 

[GoVols]

Sorry guys, I was giving my daughter a bath... what'd I miss? (j/k I'll go back and read).

Lol
With BRS in bed with Neptune, looks like a GHL sell off ???

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I think Antonio Brown just got word of this thread and you giving in. Dude took his shirt pads/shirt off and left the fireld during the game. He is so passionate about saltwater fish and you not holding the Bertram position

I wasnt giving in. I merely am acknowledging that @Mywifeisgunnakillme had a superior legal precedence over mine for one part of the debate. I still think BRS wins wins this one legally but loses PR'ily (if that is a word). I dont think there is much case law on this because I dont think pricing mistakes on the internet ever make it to trial. Either the company acquiesces and just gives it at the price, they cancel it and refund the money next or if it got past 1 and 2, no lawyer would really take it and if he did, it was settle prior to small claims court. So everything we are debating is all theoretical nonsense which will most likely never be resolved because either BRS will give in or they will cancel the orders and people will move on. The legality of this will remain in question for quite some time.

 

[rtparty]

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.

The sarcasm didn't come through

 

[JohnnyKnuckles]

Im sure my LFS will sue me once I let this trick fly. Since we have both, Real Attorneys and Google lawyers in this group, I need rates please.

 

[((FORDTECH))]

Im sure my LFS will sue me once I let this trick fly. Since we have both, Real Attorneys and Google lawyers in this group, I need rates please.

I think your fish gunna sue you first lol

 

[GoVols]

I am sort of surprised that BRS hasn’t joined this thread to inform people of the outcome. Maybe they will acknowledge the error and honor it…..who knows? I don’t have any skin in the game either way but find it interesting.
Like @BroccoliFarmer i am wondering if it doesn’t go through if people will get mad and make a fuss about it.

corey

tagging

 

[MnFish1]

No, however, in order to post you must have an account, and during account registration you're met with this page, which has a check box for "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions" which is obtaining agreement from you to abide by the rules.

Yes - and I do not believe (I just made an account) - that BRS' website has this function (unless I missed it)

You agreed to terms when you signed up.

That's another interesting point though. If your user account at BRS requires agreement with the disclaimer explicitly, that could be an argument for BRS.

Guest checkouts would be different.

As far as I can see it does not. I still think it is a non-issue from a legal a stand-point - but as you know - anyone can sue anyone for anything

 

[fishy27]

Im sure my LFS will sue me once I let this trick fly. Since we have both, Real Attorneys and Google lawyers in this group, I need rates please.

Is that Reef safe?

 

[MnFish1]

What’s funny is 26 pages but not 1x was brs tagged here to straighten this out. I’m not involved so I will not tag them because I don’t want to ruin anyones fun.

If BRS is 'tagged' - it becomes a 'vendor forum issue' and then all of the comments are deleted. My strong guess is that BRS is well aware of the situation. The rest is a 'discussion'. Its not an argument. I find it extremely interesting - because I buy a lot of stuff on the internet - and I haven't ever seen this topic before. And - BTW - on R2R - very few things are solved in 3 pages. as you know

 

[MnFish1]

Agree with the discussion board but see people digging in their heals and forming strong opinions. What happens if those opinions turnout to be wrong? Do they write-off BRS?

I don't understand this. I think a lot of people have an axe to grind (for no reason IMHO) - against BRS. but I don't know what you mean by 'write-off' BRS. You mean stop using them? No - MAYBE (we still dont even know - all of this is total hypothetical) - they made a mistake. Maybe - like some companies - they will honor the orders or like others - will refund money - OR - refund money and something else. I think that If I was going to pick a company - that has always been 'fair' to customers and this hobby - I would say BRS

 

[JohnnyKnuckles]

I think your fish gunna sue you first lol

You would think but Ive been doing it for years. Both for me and friends. This is a small 30L that is full. I also have a redsea 250 here at the house thats been rolling for a couple years with Repurp

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I wasnt giving in. I merely am acknowledging that @Mywifeisgunnakillme had a superior legal precedence over mine for one part of the debate. I still think BRS wins wins this one legally but loses PR'ily (if that is a word). I dont think there is much case law on this because I dont think pricing mistakes on the internet ever make it to trial. Either the company acquiesces and just gives it at the price, they cancel it and refund the money next or if it got past 1 and 2, no lawyer would really take it and if he did, it was settle prior to small claims court. So everything we are debating is all theoretical nonsense which will most likely never be resolved because either BRS will give in or they will cancel the orders and people will move on. The legality of this will remain in question for quite some time.

I had one jury trial and appeal on a unilateral contract formation case and issues like this kinda presented itself. I had to research contract law so much that, based on that research, my gut feeling is that BRS would lose.

In closing arguments to the jury, i used some website contract formation analogs and that was persuasive; the jury came back in my favor in like 30 minutes. Key to the analogs was the person on the internet taking affirmative action to agree to a contract. The jury--and this is a factual question for the jury not a legal question for a judge--was not impressed by thinking they could agree to something just by going on a website.

On the other hand, if evidence of the actual retail price of the GHL products was admitted into the record--and i have serious doubts there because i would object all day long and twice on sunday (extrinsic evidence is extremely hard to get admitted when there is no ambiguity in the contract)--the jury could be persuaded that it was a mistake and take pitty on BRS regardless of the law. Even then though, my jury instructions would make it clear that since the buyer made no mistake, BRS' s mistake could not get it out of the contract.

Last, one person's order itself does not look like a mistake, it looks like a reduction in price by BRS:

Totally agree that this is a hard case to get to a trial or even a lawsuit. But that really just supports the position that BRS is at fault and it is the party that could have prevented this situation entirely with some due diligence.

 

[biecacka]

Yeah I believe someone “tagged” them in the first 5 pages or so. they probably came over, read the thread and laughed. Shared it friends and family who also laughed. And commented something like, “don’t they have anything better to do? Or what a bunch of idiots? Or how long do you think the thread will get before Monday?” Haha


corey