Tom, You're like an old dog with a bone. Leave it alone already! Let it die here. Regards, Bob S.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for the response Henry. I read/skimmed the The Equitable > Doctrine of Unilateral Mistake. Here's my thoughts and I preface they > are obviously simply my opinions: > > http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol1/a002groebner.html > > 1. I couldn't find whether the The Equitable Doctrine of Unilateral > Mistake is simply that, or if it really has any basis in law. Since > the article I read came from a law journal, I assume it must at least > have been recognized in legal decisions that set precedents. > > 2. In either case it is very vague and fuzzy and open to much interpretation. > > 3. As you mentioned, it speaks of "When online retailers make honest, > good-faith pricing mistakes that result in huge losses to the benefit > of opportunistic online shoppers, their mistake could be grounds for > rescinding the unfavorable contract under the doctrine of unilateral > mistake". > > 4. I question whether the amount of money involved in this > transaction, represented a 'huge loss'. Since I don't have near the > annual revenue of B&H, and I wouldn't consider it a *huge* loss if I > lost $250 personally, I would say it does not represent a huge loss > for B&H either. I admit I don't know where I'd draw the line, but I > know it would not be at $250. Earlier in the document it cites losses > in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars that > have been incurred by online retailers, because of pricing mistakes in > automated systems. I can certainly understand why a retailer would > want to prevent those kinds of losses, and doing so is indeed fair to > the retailer. > > 5. The offer to sell the 2nd speaker at cost with free shipping was a > move in the right direction. Not knowing what that cost is, it's hard > to judge how much of a concession it was. However, I can understand > at least, the principle of compromising so that the buyer gets a lower > price, and the retailer does not lose their entire item cost. > > 6. I still think it would have been better, and in the long term > interests of both customer loyalty and B&H's reputation, to simply > honor the original contract as it stood. > > Thank you again. > > Tom C. > >> Actually I was emailing replies all along. Unfortunately for me I'd >> registered here under [email protected] and learned only this morning >> that our back-end people had changed me to [email protected] so every >> message I'd sent here bounced. Since the topic has died down I don't think >> tossing gas on dieing embers is particularly fruitful. The product in >> question was not a Pentax product and the customer in question is, as far as >> I can tell, not a subscriber to this group. >> >> I am reluctant to go too far OT, but briefly we sell a particular speaker >> for 250.00 each. We inadvertently posted on our site the speaker was selling >> for 250.00/pair. The customer placed an order which was transmitted to the >> warehouse where they were unaware of the site error and shipped the customer >> a speaker. He contacted us and we offered a variety of reasonable >> compromises including the chance to buy the 2nd speaker for our cost with >> free shipping. Lawyers I know say a compromise is when both parties are >> equally dissatisfied. We were unable to reach a compromise with the >> customer. We regret the error and regret not being able to come to a >> compromise. >> >> Someone speculated about the original review disappearing from the site. The >> author of the review revised it. That sent it from active to pending status. >> Once the pending period expired the review returned to visibility. B&H had >> nothing to do wit that. >> >> Regarding legalities, our site and our site's disclaimer and our response to >> this situation have all been vetted by our in-house lawyer. We are confident >> of the legality. I believe my first post, forwarded by another member of >> this group, referenced The Equitable Doctrine of Unilateral Mistake. It is >> germane. >> >> On a personal note, one person here posted the following at various times: >> "Posner's whine ...Posner's just the waterboy for them...B&H lied about >> their pricing...So, we now have B&H Photo who come off looking like a bunch >> of lying scumbags...attack dog Posner..." >> >> I'd like to think it's possible to engage in a reasonable dialogue here and >> disagree with one another without resorting to venal personal invective and >> insults. >> >> -- - >> >> regards, >> Henry Posner >> B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
