Shopping Discussion

Brick wants customers to refund it for website discount error

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 9th, 2014 4:55 pm
Deal Addict
Nov 18, 2003
2456 posts
brunes wrote:
Jan 9th, 2014 7:08 am
There is no debate. The contract was done and the purchase completed. This is how transactions work. The instant you give a merchant money for a product, a contract has been made. If the merchant does not live up to the agreed upon transaction, then that is when consumer protection laws kick in, and you take their butt to court.
The Brick had not accepted the money for the product yet, they had only accepted a proposed method of payment. No charge was processed on the credit card, therefore no money was exchanged. By your reasoning, no contract has been made.
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:
Jan 1st, 2014 1:50 pm
First off, I'm not a PR rep, nor am I someone who's banned. Second of all, because I express a dispopular opinion, I must be sleazy?
No, but your unfounded rude and personal remarks are what make you sound sleazy. Deep behind your insults I actually see the shadow of some good points you could be making, but they are muted by your rule breaking insults.
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:Look at the other thread about Target and SOCOP.... Target doesn't participate in SOCOP, which is voluntary, and you have these pretentious entitled people demanding their milk bag or whatever $10 item free. Laughable.
Uh, FYI, it's S.C.O.P, not "SOCOP".

SCOP was intended to overcome valid public skepticism over the accuracy of computerized cash registers. The fact that Target *just* hurt millions of customers with unsafe credit card scanners should tell us that the public is still very right to fear that companies don't take point-of-sale accuracy and security very seriously. Assuming your claim about Target/"SOCOP" is true, it's sadly ironic that Target would shun SCOP but then be the company whose checkouts were monumentally infected.
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:People often forget we are a free market economy. No reason to run to the government, crying about bad consumer practices. Vote with your money. Don't like Leons? Brick? Target? Cool. Don't shop there.
Personally I don't think passivity is a good or effective option. Offenders reap money and market dominance, which in turn lets them practice virtual or actual self-regulation. That's why a better option is to take offenders to task.
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:Imagine how much tax dollars is wasted in Quebec to have this government run OPC.
Personally I think consumers are woefully under protected, and I'd welcome government money being spent to help consumers. Heaven knows how much tax dollars are wasted inflating already massive corporate profits.
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:Educate yourselves on what an Equalization payment is: ... _in_Canada
I'm pretty creatively open minded, but even I can't see any relevance whatsoever of equalization payments to the topic of this thread.
cHiNgChInG99 wrote:Now, does this level of education sound like some minimum wage paid PR rep on the Brick Floor?
No comment, due to board rules.
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
I think I said this back in the boxing week thread, but I am sympathetic when retailers have a true rare and bona fide price error.

But considering how The Brick's entire business model is selling people on sneaky financing agreements that the customer can never cancel, it is interesting to see The Brick trying to weasel out of a contract after the fact.

Maybe this will help them know what it's like to be a customer of theirs.