My order is cancelled

If in store, the item is mis-priced, then they have to honor it, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with shoplifting if I score a mis-priced item.

Some deals are good, some are hot, some are so good, it's called "steal", Buyer getting hot deals are called shoplifting by you? Then what are you doing here?

It's not that we hack the site, and change the price ourselves. That's shoplifting. I don't know why shop mark the $60 item as $14.99, because I don't care, it's not my business. You mark the price, I pay you the price, that's called deal.

I repeat, if a buyer changes the price tag on the merchandise, then ask the shop to honor the deal, that's shoplifting. But if you call the buyer who score a mis-priced item as shoplifter. Well, that's very high moral, but I believe majority people won't agree with you.

hmmmm, BB left me a message about calling them back to "confirm my order" I wonder if those bastards are trying to weasel out on me...hehe Been on hold waiting for someone to answer their service line for 25 mins. now

Neil (I do like the term 'e-looting'!), while I lean to your side of the argument, FS does not deserve to be given a free ride. They have a responsiblity to customers/shareholders/themselves to be savvy and dilligent in their use of the medium - clearly there are instances when they are not. I believe that they have provided themselves with an appropriate 'out' (cancelling orders as per the web agreement), and need to decide themselves if the remedy is fair. As for 'e-looters' - I think not, 'e-opportunists' - yes. The pinko in me will not let FS of the hook, they should not be able to use this medium with impunity. They should be held accountable for their mistakes. I believe in this case, the 'e-opportunists' had fun, and FS was once again 'called' on their carelessness and disrespect for the medium. No loss to either side except time and attention, which I believe is appropriate.

NV

Raxel wrote:I repeat, if a buyer changes the price tag on the merchandise, then ask the shop to honor the deal, that's shoplifting. But if you call the buyer who score a mis-priced item as shoplifter. Well, that's very high moral, but I believe majority people won't agree with you.

Actually, that's not shoplifting - it's fraud.

Neil wrote: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?

Foolish to bring up the golden rule... FS will not hesitate to scam customers (do I really need examples?), and so customers have every reason to be opportunistic (nicely put NoahVail).

Most good businesses will honour a price, even if it is misadvertised, and change it afterwards. FS (not a sales associate, or a cashier... your analogies are terrible) screwed up, and so they should be held accountable by honouring the agreed upon price at the time of sale. FS had a lot of business online due to boxing day sales... live by the sword, die by the sword... sort of.

Neil wrote: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?

THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! Why would anyone sell you something because they got a good deal? Whether or not they sell you the box set has no bearing as to the fairness of the deal. If I find a good deal, I'm not selling it to you. Ridiculous.

Well, BB just wanted to confirm my order and didn't say anything about cancelling the order or wanting more money or anything. Woo Hoo!!! 15$ WD hard drive on the way . I hope my buddy Neil gets all his boxsets too!

Mike71 wrote:Well, BB just wanted to confirm my order and didn't say anything about cancelling the order or wanting more money or anything. Woo Hoo!!! 15$ WD hard drive on the way . I hope my buddy Neil gets all his boxsets too!

Make sure to differentiate that you mean a different "Neil" there Mike We know the Neil of this thread, couldn't bear to pay any less than full price!

NoahVail wrote:Neil (I do like the term 'e-looting'!), while I lean to your side of the argument, FS does not deserve to be given a free ride. They have a responsiblity to customers/shareholders/themselves to be savvy and dilligent in their use of the medium - clearly there are instances when they are not. I believe that they have provided themselves with an appropriate 'out' (cancelling orders as per the web agreement), and need to decide themselves if the remedy is fair. As for 'e-looters' - I think not, 'e-opportunists' - yes. The pinko in me will not let FS of the hook, they should not be able to use this medium with impunity. They should be held accountable for their mistakes. I believe in this case, the 'e-opportunists' had fun, and FS was once again 'called' on their carelessness and disrespect for the medium. No loss to either side except time and attention, which I believe is appropriate.

NV

I quite agree with you here. Considering the matter of how Future Shop handled the situation - they noticed the problem and fixed it within a matter of hours, on a statutory holiday. Then they immediately contacted some people with the illegitimate orders with a somewhat courteous note. On the whole their site contains 10's of thousands of items and these box sets probably make up perhaps 0.1% of their inventory. It's an understandable mistake that was swiftly handled.

I think that's actually pretty good response on their part. Compare that with Dell who would take the orders for days upon days and then cancel them without notification one or two weeks later or try to re-charge at full price.

But I don't think the conduct of an individual should be based on whether they are ripping off a faceless corporation or ripping off a sweet ole grandmother. The ripping off is still wrong, and trying to justify it because of who you're doing it to is pretty weak.

If Mr X is willing to rip off Future Shop for $150 because they mislead newbies that buy computers, what's next? Will he then rip off some other company for $150,000 because their SUV's pollute the air? Will he burn down someone's house because they cut him off in traffic? We're living in society here people and doing unto others because you don't like them or because you think you can get away with it is just wrong.

Personally I think how a person acts on small matters of honesty is very telling of how they will act in large matters. If a person is willing to quietly pocket the extra $10 their waitress accidentally gives them, that is a person that would have no qualms about lying to the police and saying you caused the accident that was their fault. These are the people that have a break in and claim 600 DVD's were taken instead of the 22 it actually was. These are the people that sell you a car with a blown transmission or a home with a faulty basement. Perhaps it is because they've been ripped off, cheated, robbed, or lied to in the past. Maybe that triggered in them a moral short-circuit that says it's OK to take advantage if you can get away with it.

Here's a clear analogy. Future Shop's store window breaks, and someone tells you about how they snuck in and grabbed some box sets. You head on over, climb in, and take 8 or 9 yourself. It's Future Shop's fault right, for not having a good enough window.

That's EXACTLY what these people were doing and their phoney baloney justification for it. They heard about a structural fault (broken web link loophole = broken window) and they rushed in and ordered box sets.

Til now I've been pretty much commenting on the integrity of individuals pulling this scam. But since you are talking about Future Shop I would say their response was quick. However I do see room for improvement. Apparently they are approving some of the scam orders, and cancelling the others. I'd rather they were consistent, either approve them or cancel them. Also considering they had a certain complicity in the matter, a concession of some sort like a coupon or discount would be nice.

The one case I can think of is that person that stumbled on a box set for $14.99 and had no idea it was a price mistake. Can anyone here seriously say they innocently stumbled on the $14.99 and believe that was a deliberate sale price?

I haven't said this before but I noticed the box set problem early on and I didn't say anything about it here for the reasons that are now pretty apparent. I have been with RFD from the early days and I have kind of a high standard of what I consider to be a 'deal. To me a deal MUST be legitimate and available to other people. In my estimation the box set price mistake was not a legitimate deal, therefore not appropriate to post here.

Wildfire wrote:Make sure to differentiate that you mean a different "Neil" there Mike We know the Neil of this thread, couldn't bear to pay any less than full price!

Hey now I'm kind of a price grinder actually, but I like to be able to look at myself in the mirror and know I have my integrity

Neil, I respect you because at least you back-up your opinions whether I agree with them or not, and not that you would care if I respect you or not Anyways, some interesting stuff so keep the debate going!! Also to correct you and hopefully I am right, FS did not pick and choose who to give the so called "scam" deals to, they cancelled all of them. BB has not cancelled any of these so called "scam deals" as far as I know. Someone may be able to update or correct me here but I consider myself to be fairly well informed

This thread has been an excellent read - thanks to everyone for their comments, and for keeping the comments mostly non-personal.

I, too, bemoan the fact that a large part of the time, the "deals" posted here on RFD are merely price mistakes on websites mostly operated with ecommerce robots. However, I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of the time, price mistakes work against the customer. Consider the new Canadian Scanning Code of Practice - this was adopted because consumers were being consistenly and systematically overcharged at the till by a variety of stores. By requiring retailers to honour their price mistakes online, economics will in time force retailers to ensure that they get their prices right the first time, for everybody's benefit. This is the rationale adopted in several European jurisdictions that have upheld online purchases made at obviously erroneous prices.

On the other hand, at one time it was considered that a person seeking to take advantage of a price mistake was committing a crime - see Kaur v. Chief Constable of Hampshire, (1981) 72 Cr. App. R. 359 (DC). In this case, a person was charged for buying a pair of shoes that were obviously wrongly priced (one shoe had the correct, high price, and the other had what was obviously an erroneous price tag, being less than 10% of the actual price). The accused won the case. Taking advantage of price mistakes has not been charged as a crime since this case. I am not aware of any Canadian or U.S. cases (other than price tag switching ones) on the point.

spender wrote:On the other hand, at one time it was considered that a person seeking to take advantage of a price mistake was committing a crime - see Kaur v. Chief Constable of Hampshire, (1981) 72 Cr. App. R. 359 (DC). In this case, a person was charged for buying a pair of shoes that were obviously wrongly priced (one shoe had the correct, high price, and the other had what was obviously an erroneous price tag, being less than 10% of the actual price). The accused won the case. Taking advantage of price mistakes has not been charged as a crime since this case. I am not aware of any Canadian or U.S. cases (other than price tag switching ones) on the point.

Nice, some legal information pertinent to the issue...this debate is only getting started

Does BB even have 24/7 telephone support for online orders? I am trying to straighten out an error on the shipping adress that they made on an order that is showing as released but I have been on hold for 45 minutes > I really need to get some sleep

I called them around 11PM EST and I was on hold for about 20 minutes.

I thought they'd be clsoed but I guess they have a call centre in the west.

roy wrote: THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! Why would anyone sell you something because they got a good deal? Whether or not they sell you the box set has no bearing as to the fairness of the deal. If I find a good deal, I'm not selling it to you. Ridiculous.

The willingness to transact the box set goes to the issue of what is a realistic market value for this item. We have people with strong convictions here saying they did no wrong here and that fair price for a transaction is based on what the seller let them get away with. OK, re-sell the box set then. I'll reimburse your costs and you'll be able to establish that $14.99 is a fair and equitable value of the box set.

Your reluctance/vehemence not to sell the box set for $14.99 goes to prove that $14.99 does not represent realistic market value for this item at this time in this market.

Given half a chance to examine the situation, Future Shop reacted in kind of the same way: "Sell you a $300 box set for $14.99? Ridiculous! Order cancelled."

I know I risk getting the auto-response of 'but they're a big bad company' - however I will still ask the question... if it's OK for you to reject my offer of $14.99 for the box set, why isn't it also OK for Future Shop to do the same?

roy wrote:Foolish to bring up the golden rule... FS will not hesitate to scam customers (do I really need examples?), and so customers have every reason to be opportunistic (nicely put NoahVail).

Most good businesses will honour a price, even if it is misadvertised, and change it afterwards. FS (not a sales associate, or a cashier... your analogies are terrible) screwed up, and so they should be held accountable by honouring the agreed upon price at the time of sale. FS had a lot of business online due to boxing day sales... live by the sword, die by the sword... sort of.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! Why would anyone sell you something because they got a good deal? Whether or not they sell you the box set has no bearing as to the fairness of the deal. If I find a good deal, I'm not selling it to you. Ridiculous.

Most good businesses? I can reel a few off the top of my head that refused to complete orders with misadvertising of prices online.
<a href=../autolink/redirectpage.php?linkid=17 target=_blank>Amazon</a> - Police Academy
Futureshop - Compaq computer + 17 inch LCD
DVDsoon - Zelda

As for your second comment, all I see is double standard, double standard. You seem to be willing to defend your purchase by ridiculing others' comments yet you still claim it's fair. If it truely was a 'fair' deal, then you should have no problem selling the sealed box for cost + $5 on the top. Hell even $10 on top. And that's being far too generous.

What you paid is far below fair market value (look a tax term!), which by definition makes this an unfair transaction.

"Yes, I will take this Benz 2005 model for $5,000 and you'll like it!" (The percentage of sticker price seems about right)

Perhaps I'm confused about which orders are being filled and which cancelled. I thought I saw some posts with cancellation emails and some with excerpts showing box sets had shipped out (?)

Interestingly enough, I got this in my email after trying to "legitimately" get a $9.99 pack of batteries. What I'm thinking is the credit card company (citibank) is starting to reject orders from Bestbuy. I did have a previous purchase go ok, but also had the 0.00 5-disk DVD cancelled.

Bestbuy is getting a huge black eye, not only in customers eyes, but by the larger financial institutions... Serves them right for having bad billing practices. If BestBuy gets on the bankers *blacklist* of bait and switch retailers, you can be sure they will get a "D" credit rating and the their borrowing rates will skyrocket (maybe two percent chainwide) more than that, they will get a ton more credit rejections.

Edit: I almost get the feeling Bestbuy does not realize that an Https online credit card purchase must be done "at the time of purchase", and is not really valid a day later... It almost feels like they tried to bundle up or got backlogged on purchases, which is something that is not allowed.

"We are currently unable to process order number xxxxxxxx. We need you to contact our Customer Care Department at 1-866-237-8289 from the phone number your financial institution currently has on record for the credit card you used, and provide one of the following two pieces of information:

The exact billing information on file at your financial institution as the information in your order must precisely match what is on file at your bank. Please note that, for your privacy, we cannot accept any credit card information sent by email.

If your ship-to address does not match your billing address then, for your protection, we may need you to confirm the ship-to address.
If we receive no response within the next 5 business days, your order will be automatically cancelled.

For your convenience you can view and edit order information 24 hours a day through"

Neil wrote:Your reluctance/vehemence not to sell the box set for $14.99 goes to prove that $14.99 does not represent realistic market value for this item at this time in this market.

It is this comment that is fundamentally flawed. You can NOT conclude that a reluctance to sell the box set for 14.99 proves that 14.99 does not represent a realistic market value for the item. There are numerous reasons why one may not wish to sell the box set, for example, they got a good deal, why give it up?

This whole idea of a 'realistic market value' is strange... if I had bought ten of the box sets, then sure, I'd turn around and sell them for $15, maybe $20 for a small profit... but I will keep one for myselft. Does this mean that it is now a realistic market value. Not really. What is a realistic market value? It's not what FS sells the item for, since they are severly over priced. I guess you could say that it is the wholesale value of the item, but then if someone sells for less than wholesale, then what happens? Am I allowed to buy the item, or is that dishonest in some way?

Neil wrote:I know I risk getting the auto-response of 'but they're a big bad company' - however I will still ask the question... if it's OK for you to reject my offer of $14.99 for the box set, why isn't it also OK for Future Shop to do the same?

FS agreed to the price with the online transaction, that's why. As I said, they want to do online business, save money by serving thousands of people with very little effort (and making A LOT of money in the meantime), then they should stand to lose the money from the blunders that this means of sales entails. They made a mistake. Fix the mistake, but honour the agreed upon prices.