GHL On Sale - BRS

[FishyFishFish]

Is it sad this is my most popular thread ever..?

Wait until the next chapter, titled "BRS makes a decision"; this story has legs yet (unless the decision is combined with a NDA).

 

[Chrisv.]

Is it sad this is my most popular thread ever..?

Don't feel too bad. I have a YouTube video of my cat meowing with 1.5 m views. I am a scientist by profession. My research has been cited thousands of times, but my cat meowing, that has 1.5m views and 10k subs on an otherwise silent YouTube channel. It is what it is.

 

[JohnnyKnuckles]

20 pages over the span of 24 hours and not one single mind has been changed. Lol.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear “You know what, you were right. I was upset but now I would like to buy you dinner!!”

not once!!!

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

You need to re-read the cases.

Whether he is an attorney or not is irrelevant, if he is stating cases that aren't related to pricing errors. I'm just glad he's not my attorney.

A pricing error would be mutual or unilateral mistake doctrine assertedby BRS as a defense. I looked at that. It doesnt help BRS. They can't meet the requisite elements.

The law on contracts is simple and bright lined in most cases. If you offer something for sale and someone tenders payment, youre usually committed to sell on those terms. That's what i think the law is here.

 

[MaddyP]

Wait until the next chapter, titled "BRS makes a decision"; this story has legs yet (unless the decision is combined with a NDA).

I hadn't considered an NDA. Could also be cancelling orders in exchange for a gift certificate to keep everyone happy and minimize losses? Only BRS knows...

 

[JNalley]

@JosephRyan , you know what, you're right, not one single mind has been changed, I wasn't ever upset, but I would like to buy you dinner for being awesome

 

[Chrisv.]

Evolution of this thread:

GHL at a low price > morals for taking advantage of the mistake > who owns BRS

lol

Any way we could circle this back to being a stuck cycle/ rip clean thread? Asking for a friend.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Take them to small claims court? Not worth the time or effort for what amounts to a couple grand that isn't even a loss.

Im in court most days anyway. An extra hour to meet Ryan sounds fine to me! Lol

 

[homer1475]

This thread is almost as popular as a......

 

[Chrisv.]

This thread is almost as popular as a......

Wait, does vibrant have sodium hypochlorite in it??!

 

[qhduong]

This happens all the time with price mistakes from much larger stores. Orders get canceled and everyone moans and move on.

 

[FishyFishFish]

 

[JNalley]

First-person who likes Noopsyche lights to direct message me gets an immoral present from me

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I'm not sure why anyone with any actual legal experience would feel otherwise, insanity.

I've stated my reasons and its not insanity. Sellers being held by courts to have to perform in these types of situations was very easy to find in caselaw.

 

[MaddyP]

This happens all the time with price mistakes from much larger stores. Orders get canceled and everyone moans and move on.

True enough.

On a side note, I'm new to the PNW. I see you have a fancy badge alluding to a local group...is there a local group?

 

[MnFish1]

A pricing error would be mutual or unilateral mistake doctrine assertedby BRS as a defense. I looked at that. It doesnt help BRS. They can't meet the requisite elements.

The law on contracts is simple and bright lined in most cases. If you offer something for sale and someone tenders payment, youre usually committed to sell on those terms. That's what i think the law is here.

"Online Pricing Standards
When an e-commerce website has had an incorrect price entered into its database, it can end up not only advertising that price but also accepting orders and charging customers' credit cards for that amount. The central issue here is whether retailers can void the contract created when orders were accepted.
The easiest way for a company to deal with such situations is to have website "terms of use" that clearly state the company can cancel orders and refund customers' money because of pricing errors (or for any reason). Otherwise, a common law doctrine known as "unilateral mistake of fact" applies. This doctrine allows a party to a contract to set aside the contract if honoring it would be "unconscionable," or if the other party could have reasonably assumed it was a mistake. A $1,000 item advertised for $10 likely would meet this definition."

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Some of my most luctrative cases are against non attorneys that KNOW they are right and dont know when to bail on bad arguments. i always enjoy getting my fees paid by them at the end of the suit.

 

[Karen00]

My only comment comes from the technical side. I guess BRS's website team has taken the holidays off. I do website/ecommerce management so I can say even if some automated process caused the glitch, if someone had been monitoring the site they would've seen the flurry of activity on these products and said "what the heck" and would've spotted the glitch right away, corrected it and cancelled orders if needed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[MnFish1]

I've stated my reasons and its not insanity. Sellers being held by courts to have to perform in these types of situations was very easy to find in caselaw.

I disagree. They have to make the customer 'whole'. i.e. provide the merchandise - or provide a refund. What to me is insane is all the posts saying 'this is impossible, it must be a mistake - but just in case, I'm going to order anyway'. Do you think any reasonable court would say that going into a contract 'knowing or strongly assuming its wrong' - is going to side with that party? I do not.

In any event - no one even knows whether they were just clearing out GHL stuff - in which case, maybe its better to wait before trying the case? Or?

 

[Jeffcb]

Per haps it was a disgruntled employee that priced them.