shumax

Well since I know that "Mr. Pollax" was terrified that I was going to be abusing the court system for my seemingly small "issue," I thought I would enlighten you to how the situation was resolved.

As I had mentioned at the onset of this situation, I was not out for anyone to lose money--myself or Peter at Performance Buys. We went back and forth quite a few times and finally agreed on the following; He agreed to sell me the exhaust at his cost, plus freight. He didn't lose anything or gain anything on the sale and I only lost about $30 from the original $357 I was quoted with freight. The exhaust, in all it's glory, shipped out yesterday---all 41.8 pounds!!!

Could have this gone into small claims court? Yes. Would I have won? Yes. Does it really matter? No. I didn't want to see Peter lose his shirt on the sale (selling it to me below his cost), yet I also didn't feel he should be profiting on the sale (selling it above his cost) of this exhaust to me due to the advertising error his business had made. Yes, it's true that I did lose something on it to the tune of $30. However, I really wanted this to be fair. I have full intentions to continue to support Peter's outfit as a result of his reasonable approach to this situation.

He has since changed his price to reflect a small profit. I am not going to disclose what his cost is as I don't think it's my place to do so. Suffice it to say that he is making money on the sale of these exhausts; and why shouldn't he? Afterall, that's what he's in the business to do.


End of story and no more posts.....

YUM....




Curt B. Shumaker

pollax

I'm glad everything worked out for you.

The only issue I have with your arguments is that a pricing error does not constitute false advertising or price misrepresentation.

I have taken a couple of business law classes and although the laws here in Canada may not be equal to those in the US, the concepts are still the same. I have also gone through a few American consumer protection sites and the FTC site doing my research on this topic and your accusations do not fall under their description of false advertising or price misrepresentation.

I'm sorry you feel like you are getting ripped off but you did not suffer any monetary loss on the deal so why do you feel that you need to be conpensated???

Here's some more interesting reading for you:

http://www.lawnotes.com/false_advertising.htm
Can Consumers File False-Advertising Suits?

A: Normally not, at least not under the federal Lanham Act.

Courts that have addressed the question seem to agree that consumers cannot bring suit for false advertising under the federal Lanham Act, for two reasons:

First the purpose of the Lanham Act is to "protect persons engaged in ... commerce against unfair competition," 15 U.S.C. § 1127, as opposed to protecting consumers; and
Second, state law has traditionally provided consumers with remedies for losses incurred from misrepresentation.

http://www.lawpublish.com/ftc-decprice.html

shumax

Are you kidding me? Please, don't tell me you think because one act says you can't file suit, that you can't do it! You just can't file in a way/manner that this Act spells out. If you had any experience with this, you would understand that this act was decided with a panel who were partial to "big corporations." Not to mention that the judge who heard the case was also partial to "big corporations." While I am not saying they were wrong, this is only ONE act that doesn't afford you the right to file a claim for "false advertising."

Read further right here, grasshoppa'. This is where it all begins---state law in the United States is much different than federal law. The Lanham Act was a Federal Act. When a retailer, or corporation, lists a price through ANY form of media and then pulls back on the price when a consumer makes an attempt to purchase, this is a form of false advertising/misrepresentation.

What's so hard to understand about this? I got it, you think I am wrong. I offer you this; Why are the ISO CGL Insurance forms setup to specifically exclude this example/coverage in their forms? Ahhh, they were bored and thought they might as well toss it in there, right? Come on....this has been going on for years. What do you think the BBB and the Consumer Protection Union/Services exist for? It's to keep business up front and honest about the way in which they conduct their business.

What this site doesn't explain to you is negligence and the duty owed by the retailer. They have a "duty" to maintain accurate pricing, be it on the internet, over the phone or through the mail. In my case, it was inaccurate on the website. The advertised price was "literally false." It also certainly mislead me as well.


I do admire your attempt to prove me wrong, but you have a lot more work to do then a 20min. search on the internet and the few law classes you sat in during college. The bottom line is that you don't think this is illegal. While I do know that it is, it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal for someone to win. I would venture to say that 80% of the courts would turn to the retailer/corporation and tell them that what they are doing isn't a good business practice and make them make good on the pricing they offered to the customer whether in error or on purpose. Their was negligence on the part of the retailer, thus they need to make good on it. I have seen this happen many times with my own two eyes. If you want to call me a liar, that's fine as I don't know how better to prove it to you.

If you care to go on and on and on and on about this, please PM me as I am tired of doing this on the Forum---it's a true waste of bandwidth.


Curt B. Shumaker