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.