PS3 for 40.00!!

[Ginger Tea]

Yeah no one reads terms these days, one games retailer had an april fools TOS that said any purchaces of x forefited their souls to the company.

Can't remember if it was a UK company (we only really have 2 dedicated game store chains, both now owned by the same parent) or if I read about it via the escapist then it could be anyone anywhere

[Eisa]

Ah. Yeah, it stated in the policy changes things. I'd still be pissed, but I wouldn't make a fuss over it. Unfortunately, they already covered that contingency.

They don't have to by any means, but I wonder what those people would say if instead of getting it for $40, Target offered a special discount to those who originally tried to buy it for $40?

[Andara Bledin]

What say you? Should Target honor the price?

As one of the people who actually bought one of the $40.00 systems, I didn't expect to actually get it.

This is obviously a pricing mis-hap, and there is no reason for anyone to expect Target to honor it. I think it would have gone over a lot better if they'd thrown the hopeful buyers a token bone with a small gift card or something for the mistake, but even just an apology for the confusion is fine.

"False advertising" doesn't cover things like printing errors. I'm sure they would honor it anyway, if the price were anything like a reasonable sale price, but it's not.

This. The price was obviously a mistake and fair advertising laws are on their side in this issue.

"Wah! We wanted to take advantage of someone's mistake and get something for nothing, and they called us on our bullshit. Wah!"

Bingo!

Another friend of ours was also one of the people who made this purchase before it was caught and corrected. He, too, mostly just shrugged and said, "Oh well," over not getting it.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

Wait, I'm confused. If it was through Amazon than isn't it Amazons fault, NOT Targets?

[powerboy]

They should honor the price of what was on the website.

[Andara Bledin]

Wait, I'm confused. If it was through Amazon than isn't it Amazons fault, NOT Targets?

From Target via Amazon. To make it extra confusing.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

They should honor the price of what was on the website.

What makes you say that?

[Gravekeeper]

I side with Boozy. Next question!

Seriously, its obviously a typo. "False advertising" is the bleet of the feeble minded.

[BlaqueKatt]

They should honor the price of what was on the website.

they honored the CLEARLY STATED terms and conditions of purchase, which is a binding contract. The people trying to complain didn't read the terms and conditions, which again are CLEARLY STATED. Should they honor a clearly mispriced item if say the mispricing was deliberate, say by a disgruntled employee? Or someone mispricing something so a friend, family member or themselves can buy it? What if it was altered by a hacker? This is why they have the terms and conditions to cover something like this.

[Cata]

I'll admit that when a friend told me about the $40 PS3, I went and ordered one. During the ordering process, I noticed that what item was being offered changed from page to page; I went back and verified what the main page showed before finalizing my order. And even then, I expected it to be cancelled, because that's a huge discrepancy. When it was simply cancelled, I was neither surprised nor upset. I give kudos to Target for fixing it as quickly as they did.

[MadMike]

Damn, when I first saw the title of this thread, I thought one of the spammers had managed to slip thru.

Seriously, its obviously a typo. "False advertising" is the bleet of the feeble minded.

Yeah, we got that a lot at my last job. It seemed like every other week, our sales fliers had some sort of misprint in them. The store's policy on that one was that since we had a third party print them up, misprints were not our responsibility. Didn't stop the customers from screaming at us, though.

On the other hand, when James the Wonder Idiot (who I've ranted about in the coworkers section on CS) put the sales signs on the wrong items, the store's policy was that we had to give it to them for that price, even though it was ridiculously low. A customer got a lumber cart full of high-end plywood for next to nothing because of that.

[HYHYBT]

That's the deck guy, right?

[MadMike]

Patio, actually. If we're on the same page. A customer wanted to build a patio, which is typically made of concrete. He told him to use mortar mix, which is used to hold bricks together. Not strong enough for anything structural. The whole thing collapsed, the guy sued the company, and yet they still wouldn't fire him. Go figure.

[DrFaroohk]

Couldn't one argue that regardless of the laws on advertising, a business doesn't actually have to accept any sale it doesn't want to? That's how it was when I worked in the C-store business anyway. It helped deal with people who weren't allowed in the store but would come in, grab something and then just toss money on the counter. It was considered theft since the cashier didn't actually authorize and complete the sale.

So Target could just say "Well ok, we'll "honor" the price, but we've decided to not actually sell any of them." Or not. There's a reason I'm not a lawyer.

[lordlundar]

Couldn't one argue that regardless of the laws on advertising, a business doesn't actually have to accept any sale it doesn't want to? That's how it was when I worked in the C-store business anyway. It helped deal with people who weren't allowed in the store but would come in, grab something and then just toss money on the counter. It was considered theft since the cashier didn't actually authorize and complete the sale.

That's the catch. In your example the sale hasn't been concluded, as there's no paperwork indicating that it has been. In the PS3 case, the transaction has been completed (they send emails indicating such), so they actually have to refund the money to make sure the balance for both parties is straight and the inventory matches up. That way the item doesn't get shipped or the person doesn't get billed more accidentally.

So Target could just say "Well ok, we'll "honor" the price, but we've decided to not actually sell any of them." Or not. There's a reason I'm not a lawyer.

That actually falls in the realm of "bait and switch", and and goes clear into fraud territory. Remember, the purchase has been made, so their only option is to void and refund or honor the deal. Anything else is illegal.