- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:58 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
That's fine if they actually did offer it for $28.00 before that. If they didn't, then it's false advertising. There's nothing to prevent them from raising the price from $17 to $28, then "reducing" the price to $23, but they should have to offer it at $28 at least for some amount of time before they can claim that $28 is the "regular price".
But aren't you still paying $23 regardless if they dropped the price from $28 or raised it from $17? If you don't think the wine is worth $23 then switch brands or switch stores. That's your power as a consumer. No one is forcing you to buy any item.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:16 am to slackster
quote:
It is patently false to say a shirt "was $60" when it never actually retailed for $60 at that store.
So? Either the shirt is worth the *current* price or it isn't. WGAF what the price was a month ago?
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:22 am to Coon
quote:
If you're dumb enough to believe the "before" price, the government can't help you.
Waffle House is the king of this. The all-star Special was never $9
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:23 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:saw it on the morning news show on headline news
Link
Robin Meade was not there today
I was disappoint
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:24 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
There's nothing to prevent them from raising the price from $17 to $28, then "reducing" the price to $23, but they should have to offer it at $28 at least for some amount of time
Then some numbnut would accuse them of price gouging and say "But I didn't know they were going to cut the price!"
The only price that matters is the one being offered right now. Why would anyone give two bollocks about what someone says last month's price used to be?
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:45 am to GeauxMatt624
quote:
But aren't you still paying $23 regardless if they dropped the price from $28 or raised it from $17? If you don't think the wine is worth $23 then switch brands or switch stores. That's your power as a consumer. No one is forcing you to buy any item.
True. They could say the wine has special healing properties, too, and I still wouldn't be forced to buy it. However, even if a consumer isn't forced to buy something, it's still illegal to lie to them to get them to buy it. An illegal scam is illegal even if it only works on stupid people.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 11:50 am to Breesus
quote:
No, we don't accept that they lie to consumers.
Yes we do dude. Intelligent people are very well aware that retailers are lieing pieces of shite. If you don't already know that I will immediately question your intelligence.
I didn't say they don't do it or that we don't know it's happening, I said we don't accept it. We make it illegal.
quote:
Great. There's your work around. Absolutely no reason for the government to get involved and blow tax payer money in this retarded nonsense.
If they want to use that workaround, then they actually have to use it. In this case, the point is that they aren't. They wouldn't and didn't offer the item for sale at the supposed "was" price because they know nobody would ever pay it and their inventory would sit on the shelf and that would cost them money. Saying they did offer it at that price therefore is a lie, implying that at least some people did pay that much. It's illegal to lie to consumers to get them to buy your product. Because, you know, we don't accept it. Pretty simple.
This post was edited on 12/9/16 at 11:52 am
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:05 pm to foshizzle
quote:
Why would anyone give two bollocks about what someone says last month's price used to be?
preaching to the choir, brother
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:06 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
I said we don't accept it. We make it illegal.
which is pure emotional-irrational thinking
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I said we don't accept it. We make it illegal.
which is pure emotional-irrational thinking
Not sure which you're talking about. Are you saying it's irrational to prohibit false advertising? Or are you saying it's irrational to think that simply making it illegal doesn't mean we don't "accept" it when we know it's happening? I would disagree with you in either case, but one of those two positions makes far more sense than the other.
The "caveat emptor" approach to commerce has been rejected by pretty much every civilized society in modern times. Scamming people out of their money (typically accomplished by lying to them in some way) is not excusable just because the person was stupid to fall for the scam and should have known better.
Saying we accept something even though we make it illegal simply because it happens and we know it happens is like saying we accept murder. It happens, and we know it happens, but we don't accept it.
This post was edited on 12/9/16 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:32 pm to Nuts4LSU
i'll repeat what i said earlier
regardless of how we get here, the issue is if the price of the good was a price the consumer believed was a good price for that good. the consumer, regardless of sales, ultimately has to make this decision. the consumer market is not even a market of incomplete information, as you can cross check prices (really easily these days)
as a general rule, "consumer protection" laws assume the consumer is too stupid to understand a simple market exchange. if we are to take away this agency from the consumers, what other contractual rights should the government be stripping these consumers of? shouldn't the retailer know this ahead of time? all these laws do is create instability in the market (one way only) that raises transaction costs, which will raise prices for all consumers
regardless of how we get here, the issue is if the price of the good was a price the consumer believed was a good price for that good. the consumer, regardless of sales, ultimately has to make this decision. the consumer market is not even a market of incomplete information, as you can cross check prices (really easily these days)
as a general rule, "consumer protection" laws assume the consumer is too stupid to understand a simple market exchange. if we are to take away this agency from the consumers, what other contractual rights should the government be stripping these consumers of? shouldn't the retailer know this ahead of time? all these laws do is create instability in the market (one way only) that raises transaction costs, which will raise prices for all consumers
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:39 pm to gthog61
Honestly ive noticed the black Friday prices really arent anything to write home about for the most part. 12 years ago circuit ciry gave me a free game cube and ssx for buying a satilate through them. Now people getting excited over black friday buy one game get the second game 25% off sales
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:49 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:you can ask whatever price you want for said product...doesn't mean you are going to get it.
If you claim you were selling it for $100 and now you're selling it for $60, but the truth is you never sold it for $100, you are lying to the customer
Posted on 12/9/16 at 12:51 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
That's fine if they actually did offer it for $28.00 before that. If they didn't, then it's false advertising. There's nothing to prevent them from raising the price from $17 to $28, then "reducing" the price to $23, but they should have to offer it at $28 at least for some amount of time before they can claim that $28 is the "regular price".
If we were to go down this road then the retailers could open at 8:00am, and then put the sale price up at 8:01am. Instead of a Black Friday door buster sale which starts at 8:00 and ends at 8:01am, you could have a Black Friday closeout sale and run it from 8:01am till closing time.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 6:41 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Saying they did offer it at that price therefore is a lie, implying that at least some people did pay that much
First off, that is not true. Saying they offered it at a certain price does not imply anyone actually took them up on that price. Are you now adding the requirement that someone bought at that price? Is that now the legal test?
Second, even if someone did buy at that price - it has no relevance to today's purchasing decision.
Posted on 12/10/16 at 8:39 am to foshizzle
This was a quality thread
Good job, OT
Good job, OT
Posted on 12/10/16 at 9:04 am to Rouge
Kohls is the worst offender for this. But if you read their legal statements on their website, they try hard to cover their arse.
LINK
quote:
"Sale" prices and percentage savings offered by Kohl's are discounts from Kohl's "Regular" or "Original" prices. The "Regular" or "Original" price of an item is the former or future offered price for the item or a comparable item by Kohl's or another retailer. Actual sales may not have been made at the "Regular" or "Original" prices, and intermediate markdowns may have been taken. "Original" prices may not have been in effect during the past 90 days or in all trade areas.
LINK
Posted on 12/10/16 at 9:24 am to Box Geauxrilla
So the next question is why would kohl's feel the need to make such a statement if their actions are neither illegal nor deceptive
This post was edited on 12/10/16 at 9:25 am
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News