mike wilson wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> Matthew Hunt wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>But refusing to do business there based on a >>>>sample-size of one other customer, about whom I know nothing, is >>>>irrational. >>> >>>One guy complaining on the Internet is one thing. >>> >>>A high-level representative of the company insulting my intelligence >>>by claiming that 50%-off sales do not exist is another. >> >> I believe he was asserting that 50% off sales for that product don't >> exist. I haven't researched the matter for the product in question but >> I can think of other products for which 50% off sales are unheard of. > >Soooo... If you saw a world-class vendor advertising said article at 50% >off, you would be on it in a flash. If the ensuing contract was then >broken by the vendor, what would you do? To be clear: if the facts >stated are true B&H broke UK law and would certainly be coming to the >attention of Trading Standards officers in their location plus, almost >certainly, suffering a civil suit for their breach of contract. AFAIKS, >the company would not be able to defend its actions. I _think_ the only >time defence has been successful is when the vendor can prove that the >purchaser knew that completion of the contract would cause irrepairable >harm to the vendor. Catching it _before_ the contract is made; fine. >Breaking the contract is straightforward banditry. > >Is US law so different?
That is exactly I said at the very beginning! *If* the events took place as the customer described. I'm confident the customer lied about not knowing the advertised price was a mistake, so I'm not certain how much of the rest of the story can be trusted. The fact that the customer *didn't* just take the dispute to his credit card company is just weird. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
