GHL On Sale - BRS

[BroccoliFarmer]

Minnesota caselaw is not favorable to brs on unilateral mistake doctrine. You can read the post i cited earlier.

You can keep referring to that cite all you want. But there is enough differences to the facts and circumstances of the situation that someone with a reasonable legal mind could make a valid legal argument that the cite does not form precedence and it would be up to the presiding judge to make that decision. The beautiful thing about law is that you just have to change the angle that you look at it to blow up someone's argument. The same reason I like your thinking is also the reason why you must also come to the conclusion that this is not black and white because the facts and circumstances and legal arguments are different.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

This is of course true - if there is a contract - the contract has to be agreed to.

In the instance (speaking generally) - of an internet pricing error, I believe (if you took the time to research it) - that the terms and conditions are binding (of the website).

Here is another example. A person posts a vulgar post on R2R - and they kick you off - because its clearly in their Terms of Service that thats not allowed. Its not like you are required to click a box 'I have read terms of service' with each Post you made'.

Isn't there an axiom in the law 'Ignorance of the law is not an excuse'?

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.

 

[Big Smelly fish]

I’m amazed to learn today that the majority of reef keepers are lawyers, dang

 

[JNalley]

Here is another example. A person posts a vulgar post on R2R - and they kick you off - because its clearly in their Terms of Service that thats not allowed. Its not like you are required to click a box 'I have read terms of service' with each Post you made'.

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.

 

[MnFish1]

Interesting that everyone is still debating the outcome of this situation.

I believe BRS made a huge mistake by not correcting the situation sooner. The debate has taken many different positions and caused great confusion, intense legal discussion, and some bad blood.

I know this is a holiday weekend but what is this costing BRS in terms of future customer sales?

IMHO - its a discussion board - and people are 'discussing'. Isn't that the purpose of R2R? I think the legal question in general is quite interesting - and there are a lot of things I hadn't thought about. I had a recent episode - where a (reefing) company (not BRS) - had a price match guarantee. Great - they had one left - I ordered it - and within a couple hours - I found one at a lower price. I called the first company - and said - I found xxx for 50 dollars lower. They said 'read our Terms of service' - you can only get store credit - whereas I just wanted them to honor the other price (which they would not do). So - I said - ok - then just cancel the order - and I'll buy it from the other company - which I did.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I’m amazed to learn today that the majority of reef keepers are lawyers, dang

This is also why there are millions and millions of pages of laws. our language is imprecise and how people interpret rules and words are different. The most precise we try to make the law, the more complex it gets..but also the easier it is to get around them. I am really enjoying the debate. It is generally civil and the same thing that goes on in the supreme court's discussions.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

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.

First 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?

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

You can keep referring to that cite all you want. But there is enough differences to the facts and circumstances of the situation that someone with a reasonable legal mind could make a valid legal argument that the cite does not form precedence and it would be up to the presiding judge to make that decision. The beautiful thing about law is that you just have to change the angle that you look at it to blow up someone's argument. The same reason I like your thinking is also the reason why you must also come to the conclusion that this is not black and white because the facts and circumstances and legal arguments are different.

I have never seen a court say a price is unconscionable. It's just not the right defense here. Its not unconscionable for a buyer to rely on an advertised price.

The defense is BRS made a mistake. But the buyer did not. Tough row to hoe with unconscionablility defense. BRS would settle before planting its flag on that hill.

 

[qhduong]

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?

I think there's a group on here but not very active. FB group is a bit more active.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

I have never seen a court say a price is unconscionable. It's just not the right defense here. Its not unconscionable for a buyer to rely on an advertised price.

The defense is BRS made a mistake. But the buyer did not. Tough row to hoe with unconscionablility defense. BRS would settle before planting its flag on that hill.

Yeah i agree. would be a PR nightmare to fight this. I personally think they would win if they so decided. But I just do tax, not commercial law.

 

[PeterC99]

IMHO - its a discussion board - and people are 'discussing'. Isn't that the purpose of R2R? I think the legal question in general is quite interesting - and there are a lot of things I hadn't thought about. I had a recent episode - where a (reefing) company (not BRS) - had a price match guarantee. Great - they had one left - I ordered it - and within a couple hours - I found one at a lower price. I called the first company - and said - I found xxx for 50 dollars lower. They said 'read our Terms of service' - you can only get store credit - whereas I just wanted them to honor the other price (which they would not do). So - I said - ok - then just cancel the order - and I'll buy it from the other company - which I did.

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?

 

[qhduong]

I think there's a group on here but not very active. FB group is a bit more active.

Pacific Northwest Reefers

www.reef2reef.com

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

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?

The funny thing is...i have already written off BRS. I dont buy from them and I stopped buying from them when all of the mergers and VC things happened. I just enjoy the discussion. Yes, people are digging in their heels, but with a few exceptions, this has been a pleasant and civil debate.

 

[JNalley]

First line of BRS Terms and Conditions:

Buying from them enjoins the terms and conditions upon you.

yes, but you do not have to check a box to agree to terms in order to do anything on the site. Complete strangers, or those with registered accounts are free to order. The link to their Terms website is at the bottom of the page cluttered among 2-3 dozen other links to things. It's unreasonable for any site to assume people will ever navigate there. If however, the "I accept the terms and conditions" was forced during checkout, registration, or simply loading the website for the first time, that would be a stronger argument. As it stands, "Your honor, I did not ever see a terms and conditions, nor did I ever agree to any terms and conditions, the price was x, I paid for it, I have a receipt, and nowhere in the process was I made to agree to anything other than the sale that was in front of me".

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

yes, but you do not have to check a box to agree to terms in order to do anything on the site. Complete strangers, or those with registered accounts are free to order. The link to their Terms website is at the bottom of the page cluttered among 2-3 dozen other links to things. It's unreasonable for any site to assume people will ever navigate there. If however, the "I accept the terms and conditions" was forced during checkout, registration, or simply loading the website for the first time, that would be a stronger argument. As it stands, "Your honor, I did not ever see a terms and conditions, nor did I ever agree to any terms and conditions, the price was x, I paid for it, I have a receipt, and nowhere in the process was I made to agree to anything other than the sale that was in front of me".

Now that you are aware..will you cancel your purchases? Or will you agree to the higher pricing? You cant claim ignorance now.

 

[((FORDTECH))]

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.

 

[MaddyP]

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.

They've been tagged a few times...

 

[((FORDTECH))]

Would have been pretty simple by page 3 this thread would have been ended…..

 

[JNalley]

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.

They were in fact tagged no fewer than twice, I think I might have seen a 3rd

 

[MaddyP]

Would have been pretty simple by page 3 this thread would have been ended…..

Honestly I didn't expect this to progress so far.