Know your buy.com rights!

[Central Scutinizer]

Know your buy.com rights!

(1) Can Buy.com legally do this?

Probably not. In many states, buy.com acceptance of the order and shipment constitues a binding offer. Doctrine of mistake? perhaps, but mistake is an intent of the *mind*, and electronic transactions do not have minds, and therefore, buy.com has a tough argument that buy.com intended to not offer $50 off $50.

In addition, some states have revocation statues for eletronic consumer transactions (Virginia comes to mind). These statutes provide a 34 hour cancellation period, after which transaction can be revoked. Buy.com blew this period by several days.

Finally, practically, what will buy.com do? Charge you credit card for the difference? Their own e-mail tacitally acknowledges this cannot be legally done; the email requests purchaser to "respond to this email with your written permission to charge your account for the amount of the
coupon."
There option instead is likely to do nothing. It is wholly impractical to file suit for $50.
(2) Will buy.com interfere with my credit rating?
This is a strange question that has been asked. First of all, "bad" credit items can only be posted to your credit report by companies who extend credit, not retailers. Bad credits appear on report through either credit companies or "public record items", i.e., legal judgments. Your credit card, mortgage company or other loan company can report failure to pay credit in a timely basis. Of course, buy.com, in selling you goods, did not extend you credit. They are not in the credit businness (unless you bought with a buy.com credit card).
They cannot report your failure to return merchandise or not agree to pay the value of the coupon to a credit bureau. The only other possible way this dispute with buy.com could appear on your credit record is if the get a legal judgment in a court of law. And that will not happen; filing fees alone will exceed the value of coupons, before the first lawyer is ever hired. Plus, based on item 1, buy.com will likely lose.

P.S. I am not providng legal advice, use your own judgment.

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Another completely off-topic post:

Courts will usually not enforce a contract where one party "snaps up" or takes advantage of an offer that s/he knows to be a mistake. BUY.COM is unlikely to do anything about the coupons and orders, but if they did the users of the coupons don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Regardless, just for the sake of clarity for everyone else, what you stated in your first paragraph is absolutely wrong. I won't go into the details since I want to forget as much of my contract class as possible

 

[JumpJoe]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=192149

The mods moved it to off topic, I thought it belongs there, but it got locked anywayz

where can people post to stay informed?

 

[Harvey]

CS -- Just MHO, but to put it bluntly, you are full of sh8! I attended law school long enough to know how to read a contract, and I have won a few rounds in Small Claims Court. I am also a veteran of the Buy.com Hitachi monitor episode. There are substantial differences between that case and this:

In the monitor case, BC had a history of offering unannounced super specials, some of which they actually honored, and some where they unfairly dumped on their customers. Furthermore, their subsequent actions were ambiguous, and most of them supported the legitimacy of the original monitor purchase.

Here, the coupon said on its face, $50 of $500. The terms of the offer were plainly stated, so if you used that coupon, you accepted the terms of the offer. In other words, all of you bozos who knew exactly what was going on were knowingly trying to rip them off. That is quite clear from the posts in the thread. :|

To put it another way, in the monitor case, BC offered the monitor for $164.50. Those who ordered accepted the terms of BC's offer. They did not try to change the deal, and, because of BC's past history, they had reason to believe it was a legitimate offer.

OTOH, here, BC offered $50 off $500. Anyone who ordered anything else for less money tried to accept an offer that was never made, regardless of whether their system was misprogrammed to let it go through. Therefore, there is no contract.

Give up on this one. It's a loser! :Q

 

ChicagoMaroon, I would be very grateful if you give detailed information on this assumed contract; that is, I would like explanation on why people would have "no legal leg" on this matter.

I will not argue or raise objections to your position; as my intent is simply to hear your argument . . ..

. . . may I suggest that anandtech's motive for continually locking threads is its--overly uncalled for--fear of lawsuit . . ..

 

[acebathound]

I agree with Harvey. It was clearly visible that the coupon was a $50 off $500 in the checkout, though it worked for orders under that price. Good luck on it, but odds probably aren't in your favor.

 

ace, did you attempt ordering using this coupon(s)? 'Cuz if you did as of that date and time, you would have seen that in the basket, it contradicted previous assumptions--it rather explicitly stated: "a minimum of $50 purchase is required in order to apply this coupon".

Then once one fulfilled this requirement, it discounted from one's account.

That as a matter of fact is irrelevant. What is important is the fact that after all was said and done, buy.com at its WILL delivered products to its customers . . .. Once this was fulfilled, then it becomes a matter that concerns the courts if buy.com insists on the return of the goods sold, or if buy.com insists on the "full payment" . . ..