No - it does not IMHO. But - if you have a disagreement - they will point back to the terms and conditionsFirst line of BRS Terms and Conditions:
Buying from them enjoins the terms and conditions upon you. If you dont agree, then you are required to return the items?
It is. In my displays I have both LPS and SPS and its not a problem.
First - we don't know whether it was on purpose or not. Second - We don't know what they are even doing (contesting it). And - I disagree - if they said 'A glitch in our software caused xxxx - we cannot honor those prices - but we will make it up by refunding the purchases - and 'insert your carrot here'. That would be fine (that would be the worst case scenario). The best (to me) would be - we are honoring the prices that the people paid and are shipping the orders - but the people that ordered when it was 'out of stock' will not get that price
But here is the question...do you think the jury would find for the plaintive based on law or simply sticking it to a big bad corporation? I would vote the latter.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.
And what about the people who decided not to take advantage of a mistake?
They (((Could))) cancel the purchases - and you can re-order - I cant see another way. *unless they are honored - my guess this is small potatoes lol - its not like they are going to bankrupt BRS by honoring the mistake
I like Reefbum for GHL and premium aquatics otherwise. But i'll shop at BRS too, no quams with them.And what about the people who decided not to take advantage of a mistake?
Yeah I know..sour grapes. Ultimately I dont care as I dont buy from them anyway.
Yes exactly like me I seen the price but did not buy it. Maybe I should of. That I’m thinking brs gunna honor it just to prevent the dramaAnd what about the people who decided not to take advantage of a mistake?
Yeah I know..sour grapes. Ultimately I dont care as I dont buy from them anyway.
I honestly stopped buying BRS once they did the gigantic giveaways over the holidays. Given that this last month of the year is when most companies make a profit for the year and BRS was able to leverage their size to get special concessions out of their suppliers that other could not, how much of the giveaway was potentially a way to force the smaller competitors out of the market? How many people bought from BRS specifically to get freebies that might have bought at the other vendors? I know a lot of people bought from BRS in hopes of snagging a few freebies and I hold no ill will towards them...just concerns me when the big boys have the ability to take out a competitor..especially in a supply bound year. Gonna be interesting to see if any of the other peeps can stay in business.
Except there are at least 5 examples - where this has been cited - and defended. (not necessarily from a PR perspective). This will never be a trial - and shouldn't be. I will give an estimate 70 percent of people said - I knew it was an error - but I ordered - we can axe them off the suit lol. Of course - (when I first posted I didnt know the actual prices of the items) - but - they are at least 70 percent lower than the clearance prices on their other items - they were not in the clearance section. - I had to be a mistake
Yeah but how about the fact that the first 15 posts of this thread are all about how everyone’s confused and don’t believe it’s true and they’re probably gonna get their money refunded anyways. Don’t you think that would come up in the case and the juries would say when you read that you didn’t think it was wrong to do. I’m just thinking to myself hereDepends on the jury pool! I would certainly remove in voir dire any jurors that expressed corporate bias if i was BRS's attorney. I could see a jury going either way. It would turn on the lawyers skills at presenting the case and admitting or preventing evidence from being admitted. A buyer testifying they thought they got a good deal after saving for a lont time, BRS was reneging, and that their fish really needed the product would be helpful
Did you see the new california law trying to eliminate 'unconscious bias'? Gonna make voir dire a lot more interesting.Depends on the jury pool! I would certainly remove in voir dire any jurors that expressed corporate bias if i was BRS's attorney. I could see a jury going either way. It would turn on the lawyers skills at presenting the case and admitting or preventing evidence from being admitted. A buyer testifying they thought they got a good deal after saving for a lont time, BRS was reneging, and that their fish really needed the product would be helpful
I did that. Placed several orders. Didn’t get Jack squat lol.
This is exactly what I’m saying 70% knew it was error and still tried to get over on a company
Which is what started the 30ish pages...I questioned the morality of humanity for trying to get over on a company.
Yes - by write-off I mean people deciding not to use BRS in the future.
