 Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 | reply to ross7
Re: Being sued by tigerdirect.com for there screw up Without getting in a personal uproar over right or wrong I will say lets wait for the judgment.
That is of course if the OP ever lets on the outcome.
--
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war! |
|
| You're the one with personal issues in uproar. I was merely pointing out that your/my moral belief/conviction has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal issue at hand. |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
| My personal issues are in an uproar?
Seems pretty calm here although it is hot.
Amazing how character comes into play in trials.
May not be legal in your book but it sure does factor in.
--
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war! |
|
| You are the one expressing moral outrage because ctaul took advantage of an offer made at large by TD. His action may not have been the course you would have chosen, but that doesn't mean that he chose wrongly, illegally, or that his character is in question in any regard. That is your projection.
Pricing errors, merchandise delivered not matching the description of that sold, and many other types of commercial gaffs occur all the time. You need look no farther than DSLR's own Hot Deals Forum to find many instances of similar flubbery. Are all those who take advantage of these faux pas blatantly, morally wrong, and of questionable character? More importantly, are they breaking any law by exercising their right to purchase at the offered price?
Only a cur of a judge would side with TD on this issue. I can't imagine the cost of a few routers, written off at the WHOLESALE cost on TD's tax return, would be worth the negative press that will accompany the relation of this story in the national media should TD prevail.
I think TD ought to chalk it up to experience, and let it serve as a valuable lesson re the exercise of due diligence in proffering their wares to the public at large. It would serve as a resounding reinforcement of the value of their good word. |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| Six routers at $2200 each is not a small loss.
Go explain that one away to the judge. I think TD will win this one.
That is really taking advantage of a mistake.
But hey no wonder things get more expensive when consumers take advantage of a situation.
Goodnight
--
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war! |
|
| said by Grail Knight:Six routers at $2200 each is not a small loss...Go explain that one away to the judge. I think TD will win this one...That is really taking advantage of a mistake... $0.00 or $2,200.00, the principle is the same, it is not a matter of degree. The buyer did nothing wrong accepting the terms of the offer. There is nothing to explain. The negligence is the seller's, let them bear the cost of their mistake, if it was a mistake. Caveat emptor is the favorite catch phrase of the business man, meant to cover all manner of transgressions against the unwary consumer. This unusual reversal of fortune must pinch for the lapse.
I don't see businesses falling all over themselves to avoid taking advantage of consumers. Quite the opposite. That is why we have laws governing the conduct of all parties to an offer and sale.
I reiterate that it is the introduction of your personal moral judgment that colors your interpretation here, not the legal issues.
I wonder what inducement, other than the threat of litigation, TD offered to ctaul rescind the purchase? I doubt they considered compensating ctaul for the loss of his bargain routers. In fact, I doubt if they even offered to pay his costs of shipping and storage, let alone any portion of his lost opportunity costs/potential profit on resale.
said by Grail Knight:...But hey no wonder things get more expensive when consumers take advantage of a situation... Things get more expensive if consumers take advantage of favorable pricing for a commodity if, and only if, the supply of the commodity is restricted by limitations of resource, production, distribution or the market conditions under which they are sold. In our modern economy, we seem hell-bent on reintroducing the feudal system of royal grants of monopoly. But, I digress. As to your point, it seems worth asking what ratio the retail price bears to to cost of production, and distribution in this case. My guess is Cisco's declaimed value of the router firmware accounts for the majority of the wholesale price (TigerDirect's cost), and flows from this dominant manufacturer of routers not on merit, but on the lack of meaningful, uncompromised competition in a constrained market. One might well ask the same questions of memory chip manufacturers, fabricators and distributors recently under investigation, yet again, for price fixing and restraint of trade. None of which matters to the legal issues at hand, but who, exactly, is taking advantage of whom? I'd say business has definitely seized the lead in that regard.
If you are addressing the loss of goods within, and throughout, the distribution system due to uncountable causes, including breakage, spoilage, theft, misrouting or misdelivery and the ever popular mysterious disappearance, that is the cost of doing business. Businessmen understand this. Once again, this has no bearing on the legal issues at hand.
Oh, you might also do a little research on customer satisfaction with various REBATE programs offered by TigerDirect... |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
1 edit | I have not shopped at TD as i buy parts locally. I have heard mixed reviews about them the same as I have about NewEgg. Means nothing really.
It does not matter really as morals do play apart in trials. I have sat through numerous trials and morality/right and wrong do give or take points away. Even though you say it is wrong well that may be but do not delude yourself that it does not matter. Jurors are influenced by anything said in the courtroom.
Perhaps the businesses in your location take advantage of the consumer but in my location they bend over backwards to keep your business. Sorry your dealings with companies have left a sour taste in your mouth.
------------------------------------------------------------
The way the OP acted I am sure he will come back bragging full force if he wins and if he loses I will look in the RANT section of DSLR.
Edit*
quote:
I doubt if they even offered to pay his costs of shipping and storage, let alone any portion of his lost opportunity costs/potential profit on resale.
Your guessing because you do not know the context of the offer made when they originally asked for them back.
TD may have offered the OP something in return. Only the OP knows and he/she has left the building. |
|
| Don't put words in my mouth, GK, and please try to address the issues I raised. You can cease presuming that you know wherefrom my thoughts on this subject spring. I can assure you that I am not a disgruntled consumer with an axe to grind. I am not an unquestioning slave either. I believe, as I have prevously stated, the error and loss to be borne, if any, in this instance is TigerDirect's. I also have stated that even if they are successful in pressing their questionable claim over the ownership of the routers ctaul purchased, they will have a considerably more difficult time enforcing recovery if the judgment is not obtained in the courts of ctaul's state of residence. These are not moral issues.
Where is your moral outrage over the shameless shabby treatment of customers who buy merchandise on the promise of rebates they'll never receive due to intentional interference or malfeasance by the reseller, or their hirees in processing the rebates. The hundreds of millions of dollars ripped off from consumers annually by rebate programs intended to defraud them makes this business of TigerDirect's router pricing snafu pale into obscurity. I wouldn't be too quick to bestow the mantle of wronged innocence upon TigerDirect. |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
1 edit | I am no more presuming then you are about what transpired between TD and the OP. You made a comment based on guessing and got called you on it.
You talk about rebates like no one gets them. Your experience with rebates differs from my experience greatly and I am sure many others. Where are those consumers that felt they got riped off? Calling the BBB or complaining about it. Bitching about the system yet doing nothing about it. I have no tears for them.
Sorry your shopping experience has been so bad. maybe you should shop elsewhere.
END*
--
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war! |
|
| said by Grail Knight:I am no more presuming then you are about what transpired between TD and the OP. You made a comment based on guessing and got called you on it. You talk about rebates like no one gets them. Your experience with rebates differs from my experience greatly and I am sure many others. Where are those consumers that felt they got riped off? Calling the BBB or complaining about it. Bitching about the system yet doing nothing about it. I have no tears for them. Sorry your shopping experience has been so bad. maybe you should shop elsewhere. END* Trying to communicate with you is tedious at best.
WTF are you talking about??????? |
|
Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
1 edit | quote:
Trying to communicate with you is tedious at best.
I have better things to do with my time then converse with people that think taking advantage of others mistakes is somehow self gratifying.
quote:
Where is your moral outrage over the shameless shabby treatment of customers who buy merchandise on the promise of rebates they'll never receive due to intentional interference or malfeasance by the reseller,
Moral outrage over rebates. Now thats a hoot.
Edited.
--
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war! |
|
yazdzikPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
kudos:1
2 edits | reply to ctaul
Re: Being sued by tigerdirect.com for there screw up Dear Friends,
Looking at contract law is not as simple as asking what is right or wrong.
Depending upon the state, laches probably applies, that is, the doctrine of culpable negligence.
The problem of living in a society of laws rather than customs(morality) is that law must be consistent, rather than fair in every situation.
In this case, there was a contract, involving the shipment of goods for the promise of payment of shipping. The goods were apparently delivered, the shipping was apparently paid.
That the price was unreasonable should have been discerned by the promissee before the perfection of the promise, and there is no reason, in this case, to assert that promissor should abdicate legal rights on moral grounds, since the liability for the error rests not upon the promissor's knowledge of the unfairness, but the promissee's. Tiger had the positive responibility to notify the buyer of the error before perfection, and, having failt so to do, are culpably liable. Since the knowledge of both parties is presumed to be equal, to wit Tiger and ctaul both knew the fair price of the servers, there is no reason whatsoever to presume fraud.
Both culpable liability and the law of agency apply - the internet site must be presumed to be an agent of the promissee because it so appears, the promises of both parties were fulfilled, the contract is perfected, and ctaul owns routers at what is clearly a good price.
Our consitution divorces everyday morality from law to allow for an almost absolute separation of church and state, and an action which may damn a person to hell for all eternity, were there a god, may be in fact lawful and desirable to the state and community.
In a theocracy, ctaul would not only be outside statute, but punished for a kind of thievery. I prefer life under a constitional government, judge not others, nor believe it appropriate to jduge. Life in a theocracy appeals to many, from the sound of it, but the original question, to my weak understanding, was not whether those of you who are competent to speak for Jesus, Muhammed or Moishe approve of the contract, rather, whether or not the contract bind.
If the question were, "Oh, Reverend Falwell, will Jesus love me if I steal the routers?" I, being neither god nor prophet would not respond in the thread, but am surely shocked that so many here not only believe in Jesus, but are authorised to speak on his behalf. To say I am impressed does not touch upon the magnitude of my astonishment.
However, the likelihood of a countersuit for defamation prevailing is equally unlikely, as, in fact, by community standards, whether or not lawful, the routers were at best obtained by knavery, worst by larceny. This is a foolish strategy, and falls into the category of frivolous prosecution. No sane attorney would risk his status in arguing such silliness.
While I would not presume to give legal advice in your state, the odds of perfecting a judgmement without notice are minimal. If you go to court, make or have made by competent counsel the laches argument, and then lose, you are out about fiteen minutes of your time, and the routers, which you did not have to begin with.
"Mistakes do happen but a person is crossing the line when they take advantage of the situation that they know to be blatantly wrong as in this case." is indeed absolute horseshit, since it is not up to a party to ameliorate the weakness of a contractor's offer.
For those who wish a more moral law, I hear that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia still seem to have missed the rise of rational humanism and separation of church and state, and, in such a jurisdiction, promissee would surely prevail.
I, for one, am not thinking of emigrating any time soon.
All good wishes,
Yazdzik
--
"...children and young people feel instinctively the difference between those who genuinely wish them well and those who regard them merely as raw material for some scheme." --Russell |
|
| said by yazdzik:...However, the likelihood of a countersuit for defamation prevailing is equally unlikely, as, in fact, by community standards, whether or not lawful, the routers were at best obtained by knavery, worst by larceny. This is a foolish strategy, and falls into the category of frivolous prosecution. No sane attorney would risk his status in arguing such silliness... Nice post. And, I say that because it is, by and large, an affirmation and restatement of my position. How could I resist? However, I must protest that the proposal of a countersuit for defamation was not intended seriously, but rather as equally absurd counterpoint to the extremism of the "moral stance" asserted by those arguing against the OP's position.
I am glad at least one someone else "gets it". |
|
 signmeuptooThank you YankeesPremium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:4
·Comcast
·Optimum Online
 ·callwithus
| reply to ctaul
You all can continue to argue this Ad Nauseum, but non of your are judges or lawyers? Only seeking a lawyer's help makes sense here, and he needs to do that YESTERDAY. I would call in sick at work and do it within one hour of NOW. And he should shop around when it comes to lawyers, he might want a big firm for this one...
--
Let's be nice to each other, k? Life's too short. |
|
yazdzikPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
kudos:1 | said by signmeuptoo:but non of your are judges or lawyers Dear sign,
You may be assuming facts not in evidence....
One should always seek at least two or three legal opinions, however; on this you are spot on.
Best,
Martin
--
"...children and young people feel instinctively the difference between those who genuinely wish them well and those who regard them merely as raw material for some scheme." --Russell |
|
signmeuptooThank you YankeesPremium
join:2001-11-22
NanoParticle
kudos:4 | Yeah, I had ended that sentence with a ? because I was sort of asking as much as trying to make a direct point.
--
Let's be nice to each other, k? Life's too short. |
|
| reply to atuarre
said by atuarre:Basically you are saying, if a business makes a mistake, the person who gains from the mistake should not be held liable if they are asked to return the property, which the business has tried to get him to do. And?
Basically you are saying that if a business makes a mistake, there should be no consequences and the person who gains from the mistake should be held liable if they are asked to return the property, even thought they didn't make a mistake.
What if the price on the servers was off by $4? Do you think the company would throw a fit? Or would someone in charge of their web store application or some database or wherever the mistake was made just get a scolding?
How are the two situations different? If a mistake is made should there be no consquences because it can just be fixed by scaring someone with legal action?
I don't care if the original poster is a moron or ethical or not. That's not my point. My point is that it's unreasonable for a company to expect customers to police their prices and policies.
--
home |
|
 atuarreHere come the drumsPremium
join:2004-02-14
College Station, TX | So your suggesting he just keep the equipment? I do not think so. The smart thing would be to return the routers. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to ctaul
Why would that be smart. Rather than contacting him nicely about it and seeing if they could work something out - they decided to take the matter to court. Why should he be flexible at this point?
--
NYC Pagans | NYC Pagan Resource |
|
