PS3 for 40.00!!

[Dreamstalker]

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?

Technically, yes, but selling through a third party (ebay/amazon) makes that tricky as sellers can be dinged for not honoring a sale. It all depends on how important a store thinks online feedback/rep is. This is more important to smaller stores than larger big-box ones methinks.

The Jerk's inconsistency, laziness with inventory and reliance on a busted price gun caused a new-release $175 Warhammer set (which wasn't even in inventory so I could not check it) to be listed at $75. Someone bought it within seconds of listing and before I caught the error. Jerk (after yelling at me) said we could offer the "buyer" free shipping or a small freebie if they wanted the set at the original price. Buyer refused and threatened to report us to ebay if we didn't honor the sale. That spooked Jerk and he demanded I complete the sale despite the fact that if the vendor found out they would pull our contract.

Of course, the "buyer" stalked our ebay storefront for months afterward demanding 90% discounts on everything. Jerk wouldn't let me tell him to screw off.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

The people whining deserve jack squat.

Target and Amazon have clearly stated policies regarding typos and pricing errors. They were disclosed, probably in fine print, but disclosed nonetheless. They're pretty much standard; you can find them on the back of the circulars that come with your Sunday paper.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to to get something for nothing.

[Kaylyn]

Ha, my friend showed me that link when he placed his order. His opinion was, "If I get it, then yay! If not, oh well, it was worth a shot."

And I'm reminded of Best Buy's fiasco a while back. Forgot what the figures were, but they had an HDTV listed for a ridiculous price. They, too, had a typo clause in their fine print, so they didn't have to honor it either.

[Dreamstalker]

I always figure that there's a chance some ridiculous low price on something I want is an error and it's up to the store whether they want to honor it. If I actually get said widget, great; if I don't, I know there's a good reason (and I need to save up more).

[Andara Bledin]

Even if there wasn't a typo clause in the fine print, they still don't have to honor it.

When the price is ridiculous to the point of an obvious mistake being made, no store is bound to honor such a price; it's provided for in advertising practices law.

^-.-^

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Frankly I'm with Target on this one.

There is no way in hell that anyone can reasonably expect a PS3 to go for $40. And if any of the customers were in retail themselves they would be equally outraged if their company had a printing error and they were "expected" to sell a multi-hundred dollar item for pennies on the dollar.

It was a typo. Before our sue crazy society devolved, if a company had a printing error they would simply print a retraction or post a big whopping sign in the store.

Remember the good old days when people could actually read (hell even see) the gorram signs?


It's just a bunch of people being whiny assholes who are willing to fuck someone else over for a mistake that if they themselves made would be crying "That's unfair to make us sell something for %90 off!"

[Cata]

Frankly I'm with Target on this one.

There is no way in hell that anyone can reasonably expect a PS3 to go for $40.

Actually, in this case, I had a theory on it. The model that they were selling was a discontinued model - it was one of the older "PS3-Fat" models, as opposed to the newer "Slim" models. I was figuring (and hoping) that it was simply the store remaindering the stock of the old model.

That said, my actual attitude was the same as Kaylyn's:

Ha, my friend showed me that link when he placed his order. His opinion was, "If I get it, then yay! If not, oh well, it was worth a shot."

[Arcade Man D]

Actually, in this case, I had a theory on it. The model that they were selling was a discontinued model - it was one of the older "PS3-Fat" models, as opposed to the newer "Slim" models. I was figuring (and hoping) that it was simply the store remaindering the stock of the old model.

You are aware that the older models sell for more because of their full backwards compatibility (they'll play PS2 discs, which the slims won't), right?

[ExRetailDrone]

You are aware that the older models sell for more because of their full backwards compatibility (they'll play PS2 discs, which the slims won't), right?

Not all non-slim models are backwards compatible. The 20GB and 60GB are, but only one model of the 80GB is. Sadly, my 80GB non-slim is not >.<

[Arcade Man D]

Not all non-slim models are backwards compatible. The 20GB and 60GB are, but only one model of the 80GB is. Sadly, my 80GB non-slim is not >.<

True, but even those others are still in the 200 range. But it shows why you can't assume, as someone did upthread, that just because it's an older model, it's less expensive.

[ExRetailDrone]

True, but even those others are still in the 200 range. But it shows why you can't assume, as someone did upthread, that just because it's an older model, it's less expensive.

Very true. My husband and I bought our PS3 in the summer of 2009, not long before they changed to the slim design, and we still paid $400 (we got ours just before they dropped the price by $100, too... figures )

Hell, when I worked in electronics at The Bullseye, we still carried PS2s, and their retail price was $99. There would be no way $40 for a PS3 would be realistic.