Connecticut Rebate Law

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

i so can't wait for sunday's paper with all the flyers...

i already went through what i had left from after xmas, didn't see much

this, is the best thing that came out of ct in years.

 

[Gnurb]

great deal, wish i had a way to get to connecticut from ma. score for consumers!

 

[Banana]

Originally posted by: Devistater
Oh dang, now we start price matching maddness with LAW MATCHING!
LOL

Uh--I don't think "LAW MATCHING" is a good idea. In some states (Texas?)--it's illegal for two people of the same gender to have sex. Can u imagine if people in other states "matching" that law!

1YP

 

[Banana]

Originally posted by: TraderGordo
. . . Am I the only one here that interpreted this law differently than the original poster? After re-reading it several times I understand how you came to your conclusion (which is probably the correct interpretation) but honestly the first time I read it it sounded like they were trying to say "its illegal to advertise a net price (after rebate price) without telling the customer the actual price before rebate". There is NOTHING about big print / small print, etc.

I agree with Gordo--what law did Best Buy break?

1YP

 

[Ness]

Any store manager that falls for this is a total tool.

(read Gordo's post for reason.)

Secondly, if this cheap-ass concept is going to be abused, then I can totally see BB, instead of making seperate flyers for states, making one flyer that has listed on the back in small print "Sales and prices not valid in CT, CA..."


Additionally, any larger scale corporation could argue their way out of trouble from the flyer because they do not print/distribute the flyer, or it may not be printed in a state where this law is in effect.


I say, if you can be enough of a weasel to pull this off, more power to you, but for those of us with morales, who don't want to see hot deals get torn away from us altogether, don't push your luck. Stores give you enough hot deals without people pulling crap like this.

 

[Ness]

I took the liberty of translating all of this in to "non-idiot english"

Originally posted by: Intake77

TSec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost,"
or a rebate

It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:

(a) You may not advertise an item as "free" unless you tell all conditions that go with that idea,
ie, "Buy xxx get yyy free." or "Get this free when you sign up for MSN"

(b) You can't advertise a price as discounted unless it truly is a discount from the current retail price.


(c) You can't advertise something as being below cost unless, like the previous section, it is below cost.

(d) You can't offer a discount/free item with purchase of another item if you raise the price of the item that needs to be bought to get the discount.

(e) You can't display a rebate price without displaying the original price. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Hope this sheds some light on why you are wrong.

 

[meefmah]

Originally posted by: ness1469
I took the liberty of translating all of this in to "non-idiot english"

(e) You can't display a rebate price without displaying the original price. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Hope this sheds some light on why you are wrong.

Well, there is a little more.
[/quote]
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:

(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the
net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at
the time of purchase of the advertised item.

A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's
rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the
purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a
consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the
advertised item.
[/quote]

Example1: $20.00-Less $15.00MIR= $5.00 The retailer would be required to sell the item for $5.00 at the point of sale. The retailer has advertised a "net" price.

Example2: $20.00-Less $15.00MIR The retailer would be allowed to charge $20.00 at the point of sale. The retailer has not advertised a "net" price.

Though according to Thump533, it is not practiced this way.

 

[Thump553]

To answer ness's point, yes BB and other national retailers do publish different flyers for CT. Apparently the retailers see an advantage to their semi-deceipt advertising, or they would publish one nation-wide ad that compiled with this law. Our advertising is a tad more realistic because of this law. Other than that, its no big deal.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: meefmah

Originally posted by: ness1469
I took the liberty of translating all of this in to "non-idiot english"

(e) You can't display a rebate price without displaying the original price. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

Hope this sheds some light on why you are wrong.

Well, there is a little more.

It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:

(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the
net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at
the time of purchase of the advertised item.

A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of
the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's
rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the
purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a
consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the
advertised item.
[/quote]

Example1: $20.00-Less $15.00MIR= $5.00 The retailer would be required to sell the item for $5.00 at the point of sale. The retailer has advertised a "net" price.

Example2: $20.00-Less $15.00MIR The retailer would be allowed to charge $20.00 at the point of sale. The retailer has not advertised a "net" price.

Though according to Thump533, it is not practiced this way. [/quote]

"unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided" DOES NOT MEAN that the item has to be sold at the final price. It means that you must be told how much the rebate is worth. THAT'S why people are getting confused here man. Like I said, nothing more, nothing less. This entire law is saying nothing more than "If you are going to advertise a price, you must list all expenses."

You are WRONG about the "rebate price at point of sale" idea. It is NOT TRUE and you are a LIAR if you walk into a store and tell someone it is.

 

[ozone13]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
Yes, now we just need to wait for those damn republicans to turn this into a national law... but I guess that's not going to happen since they only like to help out rich people. Hot deal nonetheless.

Damn Democrats always complaining! No wonder donkeys represent Democrats in satire!

 

[alm4rr]

I heard that Rush played as the original "Fat Bastard"

anyone try this out this Sunday?

 

[Modeps]

boy, I hate being a liar </sarcasm>

http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/Tips/Rebates.htm

Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer?s rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don?t wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.

For more information, contact the Department of Consumer Protection, Trade Practices Division at 860-713-6125 or 1-800-842-2649.

 

[Ness]

Again, your are a victim of the verbose statements made here, because AGAIN, it can be interpreted that if they don't say the original price, and tell you that a certain price is after rebates, they are required to give it to your without rebates. You take to assuming too many things. May I help you down off of that soapbox?




Liar.


Here's how it works and what the law is:

If a store advertises an item as "$99" with "$40" in rebates" are you to assume that the item is $139, then $99 after rebates, or $99 and then $59 after rebates? With this law in place, retailers are required to give you this information clean and clear, or pay the price. So yes, if they fudge up, this does work. But no, this is a nothing more than a case of YMMV.

 

[Modeps]

Don't be jealous that you don't live in CT.

if you doubt me so much, call them yourself... it's a toll free number.

 

[Ness]

I edited my previous post to further pound your statement into the ground.


BTW, that's a pretty lame "comeback", so I'll accept that as a big fat win for me.

 

[Modeps]

good! i'm glad you won. congratulations!

Anyways, laws are always open to different interpretation by different people. If you have a law degree, I may be more inclined to listen to you, but you're just another computer guy like me. Nice chatting with you.

 

[santokki]

Originally posted by: Intake77
boy, I hate being a liar </sarcasm>

http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/Tips/Rebates.htm

Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer?s rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don?t wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.

For more information, contact the Department of Consumer Protection, Trade Practices Division at 860-713-6125 or 1-800-842-2649.

At least from the State of Connecticut's official web site:

If Best Buy advertises an item to be $59 ($99 less $40 MIR), then BB must pay the consumer $40 when the consumer pays $99. If BB does not want to do this, then they cannot mention $59 anywhere.

EDIT: The wording in the law as posted in the first post indicates that as long as BB shows the exact rebate amount, they're okay. But the wording in the web site is different.

 

[santokki]

On a similar note ... I wish that all thread titles in this Hot Deals Forum were required to show the rebate amount. I hate having to enter a thread to find out the rebate amount.

For example:
LEXAR 128MB JumpDrive (USB thumb drive) 49.99 AR at Officemax

How much is it before rebate? How much is the rebate? I'd hate to go to OM to find that it's $100 and $50 rebate.

 

[VBboy]

I did not have sexuals relations with that woman!

 

[Pothead]

Originally posted by: santokki
On a similar note ... I wish that all thread titles in this Hot Deals Forum were required to show the rebate amount. I hate having to enter a thread to find out the rebate amount.

For example:
LEXAR 128MB JumpDrive (USB thumb drive) 49.99 AR at Officemax

How much is it before rebate? How much is the rebate? I'd hate to go to OM to find that it's $100 and $50 rebate.

Geez, lazy bums.

 

[firestorm225]

Originally posted by: ness1469
Any store manager that falls for this is a total tool.

(read Gordo's post for reason.)

Secondly, if this cheap-ass concept is going to be abused, then I can totally see BB, instead of making seperate flyers for states, making one flyer that has listed on the back in small print "Sales and prices not valid in CT, CA..."


Additionally, any larger scale corporation could argue their way out of trouble from the flyer because they do not print/distribute the flyer, or it may not be printed in a state where this law is in effect.


I say, if you can be enough of a weasel to pull this off, more power to you, but for those of us with morales, who don't want to see hot deals get torn away from us altogether, don't push your luck. Stores give you enough hot deals without people pulling crap like this.

I agree 100% with what you said. This is a huge display of the stupidity that has taken over the country when it comes to law. To me, this abuse of the law is no better than suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Intake77
good! i'm glad you won. congratulations!

Anyways, laws are always open to different interpretation by different people. If you have a law degree, I may be more inclined to listen to you, but you're just another computer guy like me. Nice chatting with you.

Interpretations? It's called reading!

Whenever you have a law, you may not imply or assume what it may stand for. It is always taken for it's literal meaning. No matter what degree of education you have in what area of study. Students in Junior high know this. Stop embarassing yourself.


"Nice chatting with you" is exactly what every store manager in Best Buy is going to be saying to you when they show you to the door. So have fun wasting your time and making an ass of yourself.

 

[Modeps]

Interpretations? It's called reading!

Yes, interpretations. Plenty of criminal and civil suits are waged simply because the letter of the law is not clear.

"Nice chatting with you" is exactly what every store manager in Best Buy is going to be saying to you when they show you to the door. So have fun wasting your time and making an ass of yourself.

I'm very embarassed! Specially due to the fact that I never actually talked to a store manager, OR got 100 blank cdr's for $10 instead of $30. I was lying then too! yeay!

It really seems like you are taking personal offense to this, that amuses me. Do you work for the state? Were you screwed over somehow? It's ok if you were, I wont hold it against you.

 

[Banana]

Originally posted by: VBboy
I did not have sexuals relations with that woman!

What is the definition of "sexual relations?" Does it include . . .

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Intake77

Interpretations? It's called reading!

Yes, interpretations. Plenty of criminal and civil suits are waged simply because the letter of the law is not clear.

"Nice chatting with you" is exactly what every store manager in Best Buy is going to be saying to you when they show you to the door. So have fun wasting your time and making an ass of yourself.

I'm very embarassed! Specially due to the fact that I never actually talked to a store manager, OR got 100 blank cdr's for $10 instead of $30. I was lying then too! yeay!

It really seems like you are taking personal offense to this, that amuses me. Do you work for the state? Were you screwed over somehow? It's ok if you were, I wont hold it against you.

If you think I'm taking personal offense to this, then you are as piss poor of a reader of people's standpoint as you are at reading plain english.

You seem to have a problem with assumptions. Yes, there are many cases involving the interpretations of the law, doesn't mean that some schmoe with a cockamany interpretation of it wins, though.

For God's sakes man, if it means soooo much to you to be a weasel and try to dick stores out of money so that they don't offer deals like they do, then go for it man. Seriously. I think your personal stake in this is that you are just cheap, and you want to see people benefit from the loss of stores.

If it's considered taking offense because I'm sticking up for silent party in the situtation, then I'm taking tons of offense.

Let me apoligize for telling people that this is likely to not work, and saving them time and efforts, as well as preventing the possible ruin of great deals to come. I'm sorry, I won't try to say what is right and live in a way that is merely looking out for other people. God forbid that any of us actually pay a fair price for the indulginces in life like mass-storage hard drives and video game systems. It's really great to think that a retail store could go downhill and lose profits all because we can con them into thinking they are performing illegal activites left and right.

Or maybe we could just realize that if this law were as you said, then we probably wouldn't be the first people to know about it.