• Last Updated:
  • Dec 31st, 2004 1:44 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
34 upvotes
Sask
pkthree wrote:Best Buy has ADVERTISED the price to be $14.99, so how is this a fair comparison?
Show me one advertisement for this and I will retract everything I've said, apologize profusely, and do my level best to adopt your warped moral code.

They did NOT advertise this price, in fact the advertisements I saw went out of their way to explain the exemptions on the $14.99 CD special pricing. They said it was for single CD's only, imports, multi-CD sets and other exemptions were also noted.

Can anyone here seriously believe that the $14.99 web price for the $200+ box sets was a deliberate advertised special which was later retracted?

There's thrift and then there's downright hardcore greed and chicanery. I realize that trying to argue ethics with the unethical is a losing battle, but at least someone has to speak up and say this kind of e-looting gives the rest of us a bad name.

What if someone's credit card number was "advertised" on a web site and you just happened to try it on a web store and buy some merchandise for yourself. I suppose it's the store's fault for not detecting you. And the victim's fault for not protecting their identity better. And the bank's fault for not having better security. And the music industry's fault for overpricing. And your step-sister's fault for not raising you better. And besides, don't you deserve some free merchandise at someone else's expense because you're so darn clever?

I really wish people would think about their actions and ask themselves if they would like to be scammed in the way they attempt to scam others. Would you sell someone a $200 item for $15? If someone took it from you and left $15 behind when you were distracted would that be OK?

So you were 'caught' trying to buy the $200 box sets for $15. That doesn't make it OK. Does the fact they caught on to your scam change your original intentions? Sheesh!
Jr. Member
May 14, 2002
108 posts
20 upvotes
British Columbia
Dear xxxxx xxxxxxx:

We are unable to process your order number xxxxxxxx for the following items at this time as your credit card has been declined.


Doh! Not sure why, but either I mistyped the cc#, or Visa has activated their fraud prevention on me arse again!

edit: We will automatically attempt to authorise your credit card daily for the next 7 days however your order will be cancelled automatically if no actions are taken in the next 7 days.

Hmm, seven days to decide if I really need this tv...
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
34 upvotes
Sask
pkthree wrote:Compensation? Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Say you see the box set on sale at Futureshop for $49.99, but for some reason Best Buy has it for $19.99. So you order it from Best Buy. In the meantime, Futureshop sells out of it, and Best Buy cancels your order. The regular price at both stores is $200. Best Buy has just cost you $150.
There's some merit to what you are saying if one store were to deliberately advertise and take orders on an item that through some circumstance ended up not fulfilling and causing you to go elsewhere.

But your example has little to do with this situation. Best Buy WASN'T advertising the boxsets for $49.99, they were at a realistic moderate boxing day discount. Furthermore, Future Shop's price was a misprint/website error. They took what I would say are more than reasonable measures to correct. By that I mean they fixed the misprint within a few hours, doing so on a national holiday no less. Then they followed up on the orders and contacted you to let you know about the mistake, leaving you more than ample opportunity to get the deals elsewhere.

Lastly, by implying that you would have bought the box set for $49.99 at Best Buy, you have established a mutually agreed upon value for the item. If in fact your opportunity to buy the item for $49.99 was infringed on, then Future Shop theoretically cost you $49.99, not $150. But it wasn't you can still buy the item, you've had all day to do so. Go buy it.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 20, 2004
4262 posts
49 upvotes
Neil wrote:Pipe down your own self. Someone called the retailers bastards and someone else thought they should be entitled to compensation. Be completely honest here when you answer these 2 questions:

- Did you order the box set believing that was a true and fair sale price, or were you trying to scam it for $15 and hope not to be noticed?

- If you found that $200 box set at the store, and the clerk mistakenly rang it up at $14.99 would you tell her or sneak out of there?
Yeah that was me who called them "bastards...lol".... I was being sarcastic, I doubt many people are all that upset they didn't get their order. Futureshop had their opportunity to review the orders and cancel them, so it's not as if someone came into the store, grabbed what they wanted and ran out of the door or something.

I find it funny that there's a very popular thread in Hot Deals with people purchasing loads of Epson R200 printers based on a pricing error on the website, and yet everyone there is celebrating on their find. Yet, you are trying to relate these silly stealing analogies to everyone in this thread...the hypocrisy is just funny.....

I saw an item at a price that appealed to me and I ordered it, end of story.
No one stole a thing, futureshop had their opportunity to review orders (as per their right) and they chose to cancel them.

Retailers aren't angels, they will often raise their prices just before a "sale" and say oh 50% when in reality, they are charging you the regular price, it happens all the time.
Case in point, see : http://forums.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=126825
and here http://forums.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=126887
and finally here
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/showthread.php?t=126778
I'm not going to answer your questions because they don't apply, and they are just your way of contorting the situation into something that it isn't.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
34 upvotes
Sask
Wildfire wrote: - If you found that $200 box set at the store, and the clerk mistakenly rang it up at $14.99 would you tell her or sneak out of there?

so it's not as if someone came into the store, grabbed what they wanted and ran out of the door or something.
No, it's like they grabbed a $200 item and left $15 behind to pay for it.
In this case the 'clerk' just happens to be a computerized system that was distracted by a price error compared with a person confused by a misprint. Same thing.
Wildfire wrote: you are trying to relate these silly stealing analogies to everyone in this thread...the hypocrisy is just funny.....
I don't see where's the hypocrisy? I think people trying to load up on the box sets at an obvious pricing error are unethical.
Wildfire wrote: No one stole a thing, futureshop had their opportunity to review orders (as per their right) and they chose to cancel them.
So does it change anything for you if thebox sets would have shipped out?
Wildfire wrote: Retailers aren't angels, they will often raise their prices just before a "sale" and say oh 50% when in reality
I think I predicted this lame justification back when I said people would blame the seller for having prices too high. Maybe we should legalize stealing from people that aren't "angels".
Wildfire wrote: I saw an item at a price that appealed to me and I ordered it, end of story.
There's is something that's called a lie of omission. There is a great deal more to the story, and it's the parts you leave out that are most significant. Such as how you came to find the item and the price that appealed to you. You didn't search for a desired item, see it a fair sale price, and innocently and blithely order it. You heard about a web site programming error, which you jumped to try and exploit. If you see someone drop their purse or wallet, do you go grab it and run before they notice? Your version of it would be "I saw something on the ground that appealed to me and I picked it up, end of story."
Jr. Member
May 14, 2002
108 posts
20 upvotes
British Columbia
The problem with your analogy is that the item was advertised at $15, not $200. In this case the item was (wrongly) advertised at $15, it was sold at $15, and then before the item was delivered to his house they said "oops".

I work at a similar e-commerce store. Mistakes are made and glitches occur. Typically, we try to fill the order anyway, failing that, we try to offer the item at cost, and failing that we offer a full refund w/ apology and maybe a discount or coupon for another item.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
34 upvotes
Sask
temo wrote:The problem with your analogy is that the item was advertised at $15, not $200.
My offer still stands for you or anyone to produce this much quoted but yet-to-verified advertisement. Personally I think it's fiction.
Jr. Member
May 14, 2002
108 posts
20 upvotes
British Columbia
Neil wrote:My offer still stands for you or anyone to produce this much quoted but yet-to-verified advertisement. Personally I think it's fiction.
Fiction or not, the premise remains valid. Post something for $15 and you should make all reasonable efforts to fill current orders, and then fix the price for future sales. Perhaps not a legally, but there are other possible punitive measures a consumer can take (e.g. BBB, which are a pain in the ass to clear).
Member
Dec 22, 2004
461 posts
Neil wrote: - Did you order the box set believing that was a true and fair sale price, or were you trying to scam it for $15 and hope not to be noticed?
- If you found that $200 box set at the store, and the clerk mistakenly rang it up at $14.99 would you tell her or sneak out of there?
"scamming" implies a moral judgment. be objective here. "hope to notice"?? ok, whatever.

and your second situation is also not objective- it implies wrongdoing on the part of the CLERK, not the mega retailer. if, for example, this were the 80's and the clerk was supposed to ring up 149.99 and rang up 14.99 instead, the fault would be on the clerk, and at the end of the day, s/he would have to pay the 135$ difference out of his/her own pocket.

if the clerk SCANS the item and it SCANS at $14.99, yes, I would walk out of the store after I paid for that item, because it is the fault of the major retailer. THEIR ACTION or INACTION or "oversight" or whatever is their sole responsibility.

This entire situation is a give-and-tug between retailer and customer. You in your sympathy have decided to side with the retailer. Who knows, maybe that's how things are done in Saskatchewan. I, and most other people, have decided to take the stance that a RETAILER has to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the status of their entire operation, including techological aspects. In fact, there is a law in Quebec which favours the CONSUMER/lowest price in the side of a scanned vs "ticketed price" argument, and this law is an unwritten rule for retailers across the country. Yes, $15 vs $200 might cost the retailers money, but unfortunately it is their responsibility to stand up for their technical error in any way, shape, or form.
Member
User avatar
Jun 25, 2004
284 posts
46 upvotes
Apparently my lone boxing day purchase has shipped:

---

The following item(s) have shipped and are en route to you.


Item(s) shipped:
The Beatles - The Capitol Albums Vol. 1 [Box] *
---

I wonder what would happen if they cancelled NOW... anyway, this whole pricing error has sparked some interesting discussion! Do I feel guilty that the $14.99 order shipped? No. But my answer might have been different had I purchased it in-store...

Thanks to Raxel for the find.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Dec 31, 2001
760 posts
BC
Received email below

=================================================

Dear FUTURESHOP.ca Customer,

On your recent visit to FUTURESHOP.ca you made purchases for music CD’s or Boxsets.

As explained in our Web Site Use Agreement, futureshop.ca strives to provide accurate and up-to-date information. However, as maintenance of our website is a human process, errors do occur. In the event that an error does occur, we reserve the right to correct or cancel an order at any time. After examining this situation, we regret to inform you that FUTURESHOP.ca will not be fulfilling your recent order for the music CD’s or Boxsets.

However, you will still receive any other items you purchased within the same order that were not affected by this error.

Please accept our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience this matter may have caused you.

We at FUTURESHOP.ca appreciate you taking full advantage of our web store opportunities and are working hard to prevent any issues similar to this matter in the future.

We thank you for shopping at FUTURESHOP.ca and hope to serve you again in the near future.

Sincerely,

FUTURESHOP.ca
Deal Fanatic
Sep 9, 2003
8020 posts
1567 upvotes
Burnaby
bodobodo wrote:When the box sets for $14.99 were pointed out yesterday I ordered about 8 or 9 of them in rapid succession. Only one of them has been cancelled so far. It would be nice if they would send out coupons or something like that as compensation at least. Notification of any sort would be good at the very least but then again BB didn't do a great job of notification when they cancelled all those orders that used the newsletter coupon and FS owns them.
Usually FS gives small, time limited discounts (last one I got was 5%, 3 months expiry)

Notification is given with the cookie-cutter email

Best Buy owns Futureshop, not the other way around. Not sure if this affected your argument though.
Member
Aug 23, 2001
313 posts
323 upvotes
NS
Dear William Matheson:

The following item(s) have shipped and are en route to you.
Item(s) shipped:

Western Digital Caviar 160GB 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

and thats a 14.99 160G too :)
Sr. Member
Sep 27, 2004
861 posts
179 upvotes
Mailliw wrote:Dear William Matheson:

The following item(s) have shipped and are en route to you.
Item(s) shipped:

Western Digital Caviar 160GB 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

and thats a 14.99 160G too :)
You lucky bastard. ;) I can't believe I missed this one... I had it in my cart and everything. :cry:
[OP]
Sr. Member
Dec 31, 2001
760 posts
BC
Wildfire wrote:I had it in my cart too, but they changed the price when when I tried checking out :cry:
Mike71 must be smiling somewhere, reading this right now.
yeah, I should have my credit card info saved. Entering that everytime cost me lost some deals. :confused: I was bit skeptical about online fraud. ABSound.ca once had all credit card database hacked.
Deal Addict
Jul 11, 2001
3425 posts
80 upvotes
hmmm, mine still says "Shipping in progress" but if you got your $14.99 drive I should get mine too. I think they are probably waiting to ship everything to me at once. I noticed that BB hasn't cancelled any orders yet, just FS. I know of at least one person who ordered a bunch of CD boxsets from BB and his orders haven't been cancelled yet, and the dude above said his Beatles were shipped so maybe people that ordered from BB will get getting all their stuff. BB would be taking a bath but they would have some very happy customers :cheesygri
Heat 51-0-0

External links in signatures are not allowed except for Heatware and Ebay ratings.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
34 upvotes
Sask
derevaun wrote:"scamming" implies a moral judgment. be objective here. "hope to notice"?? ok, whatever.
You got that right, I do strongly believe this is a moral issue and that individuals with integrity will not seek to rip off anyone, be it a blind person on the corner or a big box retailer.

derevaun wrote: and your second situation is also not objective- it implies wrongdoing on the part of the CLERK, not the mega retailer.
The way I'm looking at I believe is valid, and that is that the clerk and website and flyers are all manifestations of the retailer. They are one and the same.
derevaun wrote: if, for example, this were the 80's and the clerk was supposed to ring up 149.99 and rang up 14.99 instead, the fault would be on the clerk, and at the end of the day, s/he would have to pay the 135$ difference out of his/her own pocket.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I managed a chain of retail outlets in the 1980's and that's not what would have happened at all. The clerk would be on the hook for their cash drawer to equal their ring in. If she rang in $14.99 and $14.99 was in the till, it balanced.

Where some deliberate skimming might be caught is by product code. Accountant or management review of her till tape might lead to the question as to why a box set sold at $14.99. But realistically for the operation we had there would be only a product code of something like 'CD' so in fact she would have probably skated.
derevaun wrote: if the clerk SCANS the item and it SCANS at $14.99, yes, I would walk out of the store after I paid for that item, because it is the fault of the major retailer. THEIR ACTION or INACTION or "oversight" or whatever is their sole responsibility.
This is where you and I part company. Personally I have a little something called honesty and integrity. Someone else's oversight doesn't remove those qualities, at least for me.

So you're fine with shoplifting from a store that has inadequate number of security cameras? Or price tag switching when their action or inaction doesn't catch you? Hey you could snatch a purse from an old lady and because of her action or inaction you'd probably get away with it. Does that make it any less reprehensible?
derevaun wrote: This entire situation is a give-and-tug between retailer and customer. You in your sympathy have decided to side with the retailer. Who knows, maybe that's how things are done in Saskatchewan.
I don't see this as give and tug. It's trying to pull a scam and see if the retailer catches you, plain and simple. Whether or not you get caught doesn't change the ethics of the person trying to commit the scam. And by the way, personal ethics are honesty aren't bound by geography. I'm sure there are people living in your area that are honest and ethical.

derevaun wrote: I, and most other people, have decided to take the stance that a RETAILER has to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the status of their entire operation, including techological aspects.
Right now I really hope you get caught shoplifting an item and that you use this excuse on the judge. A retailer's ability to catch you has nothing to do with the action you commit. My point is that stealing is still stealing even if you don't get caught.

Lastly I would ask you to use some imagination here and put yourself in the role of seller. Say you are selling some CD's and I know one of them is a box set worth $200 or $300. And when I go by to get it your mom has no clue and gives it to me for $15 because that's the price of some single CD's you were selling. How do you feel? The main question is really the golden rule - if you were the seller or retailer, would you like someone doing this to you? Would you consider it fair or honest? If this isn't how you would like to be treated, why would you treat someone else like that?

My challenge is to you or anyone else that thinks you did a fair or honest thing and that you gained no unfair advantage in this box set scheme. Sell me your box set for $14.99. If you do, that is proof you feel the $14.99 is a fair and reasonable market price for the item. This is a chance to prove your convictions and it won't cost you a penny. Will you do it?
Sr. Member
Aug 29, 2004
871 posts
145 upvotes
neil, while i can appreciate and respect your opinions, and how much you are willing to explain/stand up for them, you have to look at it from the mentality of some people. honestly, if you were in a dark alley, with no hope of anyne seeing you, and you saw a 20 and a 50 dollar bill., which one would you take? or would you take both? FS rips us off (and totally innocent pepople, ive watched them lie to people downright) so in my opinion, us getting a little bit of a deal on stuff isnt really a moral issue, its one of lukc
everything happnens for a reason, so maybe this is a way of us being rewarded or something, either way, i dont at all feel its an ethical or moral issue, althought i do respect your opinions, and i do understand the point of view you hold on this
Member
User avatar
Jun 25, 2004
284 posts
46 upvotes
I don't know if you'll be able to find "honesty and integrity" in the very fabric of this whole consumer society. Sure, there are honest people--both retailers and customers--but the goal of the business itself is to make profits. Don't forget that corporations are separate entities, and that Best Buy or Futureshop are not PEOPLE. I think the movie "The Corporation" did a good job of showing that the personality traits of a corporation match that of a psychopath. There's consumer protection legislation for a reason.

Perhaps we should take a poll and see whether RFD folk consider this whole pricing error fiasco to be shoplifting!

Top