Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

william-james88 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

claborn wrote:Tl;Dr

Please, please clarify ONE thing. When you went to the cash register and the cashier scanned the MP-Bee, did it scanned FROM THE BOX at 6.99$?

He already said that it did not. It scanned for 64$, you can see it on his receipt.

Then, it was FRAUD coupled with the manager's incompetence.

Case closed.

What exactly is your definition of fraud -Kanrabat-? Considering I gave the dictionary definition of "fraud" earlier and explained how he didn't meet that criteria, I'd really like to know your definition of fraud.

Because at the end of the day, he purchased it legally.

And I wouldn't call the Manager incompetent, he was just put into a no win situation, but hey, let's hear how YOU would have handled it if you were in that position.

Burn wrote:What exactly is your definition of fraud -Kanrabat-? Considering I gave the dictionary definition of "fraud" earlier and explained how he didn't meet that criteria, I'd really like to know your definition of fraud.

Because at the end of the day, he purchased it legally.

And I wouldn't call the Manager incompetent, he was just put into a no win situation, but hey, let's hear how YOU would have handled it if you were in that position.

Sigh... Let's break it down.

Guy take Bee that was over label stating "Peanut butter sandwitches: 6.99$".

Guy take it to register. Register ring "Bee, 64$".

Guy say "But it's a 6.99$ peanut butter sandwich!"

Manager just don't want to deal with his hissy fit even though he's full of it. So he sell nim the Bee at that price to shut him up and went to the backstore to finish his bottle of jin.

It's clear as day that it's fraud mixed with incompetence. "Purchase legally" is NOT an excuse. It's like going to a car retailer and force the seller to sell you a car for 1$ unless you expose some questionable stuff. He sell you a 20000$ car for 1$, you fill all the paperwork, and the contracts are 100% legally binding. But was it really legal? Hell no.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Manager just don't want to deal with his hissy fit even though he's full of it. So he sell nim the Bee at that price to shut him up and went to the backstore to finish his bottle of jin.

Still not seeing how it's fraud. The manager could very well have told him no. He didn't. Therefore the transaction was legal.

There was nothing fraudulent about it.

The price was labelled on the shelf.
The price was correct in the computer.
The product was displayed above the wrong shelf pricing sticker.
Customer exercised his legal rights (which as we know varies across the world) and the Manager conceded and gave him the displayed price.

Where is the fraud?

It's clear as day that it's fraud mixed with incompetence.

It's not incompetence. At the very least, it's laziness. (And not fraud)

"Purchase legally" is NOT an excuse.

I'm not using it as an excuse. I'm stating it. He purchased it, thus making the transaction legal.

Morally correct? That's open to an individual interpretation.

It's like going to a car retailer and force the seller to sell you a car for 1$ unless you expose some questionable stuff. He sell you a 20000$ car for 1$, you fill all the paperwork, and the contracts are 100% legally binding. But was it really legal? Hell no.

You said it yourself, all the paper work was done. That makes the transaction legal.

Now saying "force the seller" and "questionable stuff" is very broad. How was the seller forced? What was this questionable stuff? Was the buyer blackmailing the seller? That would then be illegal.

But that's not what happened in this case. You're making up scenarios which don't line up with this particular scenario.

You believe it's fraud, I don't. So let's leave it at that. We've both made our points very clear and there's no point harping on about it any further.

Well, put a fortmax over a 16$ tag and try to buy it at that price then. After all, it's "legal".

Except for the fact that the employees put it there. If he had put them there then they would have it on video.

What I don't get is that since its in Canada. Why is everything in USD

This has become quite the ethical debate, and an interesting one at that.

Let me lay down a situation I encountered, and you all can tell me where it sits on the ethical/morality scale.

Remember last year (maybe longer) the run of legions toys that had Cliffjumper, Skywarp, Ultra Magnus, and maybe one other. When the news hit here that they were coming I started hunting for them. I rolled into a Dollar General not far from my house, and found Magnus and Cliff. They were hanging on an peg with no tag, and there were no other Legion, or TF toys around. I took them to the register figuring they would ring up for what ever they cost. When I got to the register the woman scanned them, but nothing happened. She tried again, and again, but nothing. Now at the time I knew that RID Legions were selling at Target and the like for $6.99ish. The cashier asked me what I think they sell for. I thought about the RID stuff, then thought, but this is Dollar General. I shrugged, raised my hands in the shruggy motion and said, "$3.99?".
She looked at me for a minute, looked at the toys, and said, "Sounds good!". That was that.
A week or so latter I hit a different Dollar General in another part of town and found Skywarp. He was tagged at $6.99. I took him to the register and paid that.

So is what I did, unethical/morally wrong? I could have said $6.99. I could have also said a $1.99.
What would any of you done in that situation?

The exact same thing you did. She didn't know the price and you didn't either. She asked your opinion and she thought it was good too. So you weren't unethical/morally wrong.

Cobotron wrote:So is what I did, unethical/morally wrong? I could have said $6.99. I could have also said a $1.99.
What would any of you done in that situation?

The price wasn't advertised and they weren't in the system. What would I have done? Probably what you did and pulled a figure out of the air.

Is that legal? Yep. The staff member accepted the price (as did the Manager in the OP's scenario). Morally? How does your soul feel? Do you sleep okay at night?

Really ... there's no reason to feel bad. The cashier obviously couldn't be bothered making the effort to dispute your figure (again, the same as the Manager in to OP's scenario) or try to find out the correct pricing, so the onus was on them for making the transaction legal.

But as I said before, laws vary across the world (and some people need to realise that the laws in their area can NOT be applied to laws in other areas). I know of people who have been refused a sale because the item wasn't in the computer. So for you to be able to just give them a figure and them to accept it is lucky.

Cobotron wrote:This has become quite the ethical debate, and an interesting one at that.

Let me lay down a situation I encountered, and you all can tell me where it sits on the ethical/morality scale.

Remember last year (maybe longer) the run of legions toys that had Cliffjumper, Skywarp, Ultra Magnus, and maybe one other. When the news hit here that they were coming I started hunting for them. I rolled into a Dollar General not far from my house, and found Magnus and Cliff. They were hanging on an peg with no tag, and there were no other Legion, or TF toys around. I took them to the register figuring they would ring up for what ever they cost. When I got to the register the woman scanned them, but nothing happened. She tried again, and again, but nothing. Now at the time I knew that RID Legions were selling at Target and the like for $6.99ish. The cashier asked me what I think they sell for. I thought about the RID stuff, then thought, but this is Dollar General. I shrugged, raised my hands in the shruggy motion and said, "$3.99?".
She looked at me for a minute, looked at the toys, and said, "Sounds good!". That was that.
A week or so latter I hit a different Dollar General in another part of town and found Skywarp. He was tagged at $6.99. I took him to the register and paid that.

So is what I did, unethical/morally wrong? I could have said $6.99. I could have also said a $1.99.
What would any of you done in that situation?

Well, that's a peculiar situation. Normally, the cashier should have either just refused to sell the thing with an unknown price, or she should have called for a manager.

Dollar General? Personally, I would have called for 2$. The store is 200% at fault here. No labels is not unusual. But to be completely absent from the system is just stupid.

Tl;DR, what matter FIRST is what's in the system. The second thing is the label identification. Because things get not labelled at all or misplaced all the time.

If the label is correctly identified, but have a lower price than what's in the system, it's at your adventage. If the price in the system is lower than that of the correctly identified label, it's still at your adventage. If there is no label at all, you go with what's in the system. And if there is absolutely no prices anywhere at all and the employee have a brain fart, well, tough shayt for the store.

Burn wrote: How does your soul feel? Do you sleep okay at night?

Like a baby. Except when my baby wakes me up.

Bumblebee21 wrote:What I don't get is that since its in Canada. Why is everything in USD

Canada and Mexico both use "$" for their monetary units: the Canadian Dollar and Mexican Peso.

I don't understand where the Canada question comes from. The receipt reads, Burbank California. The very store my Brother buys most his TFs! What do you know!

Ok guys here is a great opportunity for you to all weigh in.

I went to TRU today and found the Power Rangers Legacy Thunderzord (which retails for $250 in canada). A bunch were placed above the price tag for the legacy comunicator (the power ranger watch) whos price is $99. It is clearly written Legacy communicator and not legacy thunderzord on the $99 price tag and thus the price tag is clearly for another product. But this way more expensive product sits atop of it.




So to everyone here, would you actually go to the cash with this product, and when you see that it scans for $250, would you tell them that the price indicated was $99, when you know thats the price of an unrelated item? This is the exact same scenario being discussed and I could have tried it today, should I have? So now I ask you all with this concrete example, would you do it?


@ Cobo, what you describe is a very different scenario, the price wasnt even in the system, and they even left it up to you. You didnt have to go out of your way in the least to get that price and you didn't instigate any action to get a lower price.

william-james88 wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

fenrir72 wrote: The mistake was by the store and there's no malfeasance on clareborne's part.

What mistake? If there isnt enough generations pegs and there is a whole shipment of wave 2 deluxes, I can totally understand a store using some RID pegs for them. Its not practical, but I dont see it as a mistake. It only counts as a mistake by law if the price on the tag is not the right price and yet has the name and scan code of the figure. fenrir, have you ever seen a store have toys on the wrong peg? And if so, did you ever think of asking the store to give you the price you see on the peg, knowing it doesnt correspond to the item?

The part I dont like here is the idea of "honouring" a price. Your cant honour the price written if its a tag for a different product, in this case an alt modes figure.

And we are not just talking about this instance here, clareborne talks of having done this often in the past. Can we be 100% sure that everytime it was done it was because the store put a toy in the wrong peg and not someone else? And even then, does it matter?

And the transaction taking place does not make it legal. For instance, what if you go to TRU and price check with a fraudulent source. Say you go to walmart.com, print out a page for a deluxe toy and photoshop a different price in the listing. Then you present it for a price check. The transaction will go through, but fraudulent activity still took place. So does the transaction going through make it legal?

Again. I reserve judgement on clarborne's part/intentions. As I already answered the part of his "bragging" achievements....emphasis on bragging.......

What you are digging or over thinking at is if there is intended malfeasance by a certain individual to defraud.

Of course I'd throw the book of the law at that individual if he does all that PS things you are mentioning (though I doubt PS can actually clone the embedded barcode data). Going to all the trouble to deceive is a felony. Same as selling an item which isn't what you present it to be is a fraud. Only a very very very sick and amoral person would encourage other to keep on doing it.

Again,from what I see from clareborne is his "over stating" his previous "achievements".

"So please cool off and leave me alone" (sounds familiar?).......also, what's the difference between the content of my post and Burn's?

Only my first paragraph was in response to your post, the rest was general for this thread, sorry it didnt feel that way.

And I like your moral stance and always appreciate it, hence why I am really curious on your thoughts on what I wrote. If you don't mind, could you answer me this part:

Have you ever seen a store have toys on the wrong peg? Example, TR deluxes under a peg with a price and name of TR legends. And if so, did you ever think of asking the store to give you the price you see on the peg, knowing it doesnt correspond to the item?

It does not matter what is stated on the peg. It's what was tagged into the barcode stuck onto the package.

This has happened to me many times and not just on TRU. Sometimes the barcode data doesn't show up.Supposedly an item in True Value or TRU or etc is on Sale. If the result is ambiguous at the cash register I let the item go. If it shows up then good.

Another poster, not you mentioned something about the US$ 64.00 price showing up. All the more it was legit as the encoding (I am assuming is all the same in TRU) is set up such that it's a one punch affair. The tag on the box allowed for the $ 64.00 discount. End of story.

Unless/until TRU corrects the error in their system, clareborne and others who got lucky are.......well lucky.

What makes clareborne different different from the incident where Amazon customers who purchased SoC Daltanious for a nearly 60% off due to a systems glitch? The fault was with Amazon as in this case TRU.

Will, you and me both know we would get stared at by the manager until we get out of the store in embarasment.

But in fatasyland, where the manager is Santa Claus, he will be happy to sell it to us that that price. He will even give us a free massage and a bottle of wine.

As for debating "legality", it's legal to yell "FAWK FAEC!" in the middle of a movie in theatre. It dosent make it right.

---

However, at least in Quebec, the LAW clearly state that if the 99$ Label stated "Legacy Thunder Megazord" and it ring at the cash register at 250$, the LAW would give us that Megazord at 99$ minus 10$ in punitive damages, meaning 89$. It happen to me several times and THOSE are the TRUE, HONEST wins.

Okay, I'm just going to jump in here, and bring my 20 years of experience working in the retail industry with me.

Everything the OP did was legal (unless he moved the product himself). It's definitely a bit on the shady side, but perfectly legal, because the manager gave it the okay.

That is where the fault lies, at the managers feet, and he has a good chance if Eating that loss (policy will vary store to store) out of his own paycheck. That is is still on him. The label was clearly for another toy, so he was well within his rights to tell the OP to take a flying leap. He chose not to, likely just to avoid a scene. Fully on him. I'm america, you only have to honor a mistake like this as long as it isn't clearly labeled for something else (which it was), or there is no expiration date of price.


Again, this is on the manager. The OP, while maybe not that honest, did nothing criminally wrong.

Personally, I would never do something like this, as in some places it can straight up cost an employee their job. If you think saving a few bucks on a toy is worth another person's job, well, that's a different discussion, and it probably won't be pleasant.

Ironhidensh wrote:Okay, I'm just going to jump in here, and bring my 20 years of experience working in the retail industry with me.

Everything the OP did was legal (unless he moved the product himself). It's definitely a bit on the shady side, but perfectly legal, because the manager gave it the okay.

That is where the fault lies, at the managers feet, and he has a good chance if Eating that loss (policy will vary store to store) out of his own paycheck. That is is still on him. The label was clearly for another toy, so he was well within his rights to tell the OP to take a flying leap. He chose not to, likely just to avoid a scene. Fully on him. I'm america, you only have to honor a mistake like this as long as it isn't clearly labeled for something else (which it was), or there is no expiration date of price.


Again, this is on the manager. The OP, while maybe not that honest, did nothing criminally wrong.

Personally, I would never do something like this, as in some places it can straight up cost an employee their job. If you think saving a few bucks on a toy is worth another person's job, well, that's a different discussion, and it probably won't be pleasant.

And that was precisely my point.

-Customer do shady tactic, basically a "fraud".
-Manager is too stupid and"or lazy and fall for it.

Legal? Yes. Not right? Totally.
This make me think about how all these televangelists get millions from guilible people in exchange for promises of "good fortune" and "paradise". Legal. But oh so immoral.

Fraud isn't a term you can just throw around. Actually fraud comes with prison time.

Ironhidensh wrote:Fraud isn't a term you can just throw around. Actually fraud comes with prison time.

Not if you're not caught or the other "consent" to be screwed.

Listen, I'm gonna drop this after this post but I honestly think you don't understand the concept.

Fraud would be if the OP changed the computer scanner info himself, and waltzed out the door with non the wiser. That isn't what happened here. At best, it becomes a price scam, but even that doesn't fully apply.

In all honesty, the OP was simply lucky. He caught a manager on a day he "couldn't deal with that now"

There was nothing even remotely criminal or fraudulent happening.

Ethical and criminal are not the same thing.

How you can be crying fraud whilst simultaneously saying it's legal -Kanrabat-?

Like I said, it comes back to a morality issue. If people are okay with doing that, well, that's their decision. It's not our place to condemn them if we feel otherwise.

Ironhidensh wrote:Ethical and criminal are not the same thing.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Legal? Yes. Not right? Totally.

What's right isn't always legal
What's legal isn't always right

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:What's right isn't always legal
What's legal isn't always right

Basically. So if someone win using a dick move, even if it's legit, he should expect to be called a dick.

Ironhidensh wrote:I'm america

Quite the bold statement. Just kidding. I really appreciated your input. I wish I could be as eloquent and to the point. It summed up everything really well.

fenrir72 wrote:It does not matter what is stated on the peg. It's what was tagged into the barcode stuck onto the package.

This has happened to me many times and not just on TRU. Sometimes the barcode data doesn't show up.Supposedly an item in True Value or TRU or etc is on Sale. If the result is ambiguous at the cash register I let the item go. If it shows up then good.

Another poster, not you mentioned something about the US$ 64.00 price showing up. All the more it was legit as the encoding (I am assuming is all the same in TRU) is set up such that it's a one punch affair. The tag on the box allowed for the $ 64.00 discount. End of story.

Thanks for your response, Fenrir, it is much appreciated. And I agree, the price on the box is what matters. But in this case, the price on the box was $64. If it was 6.99 then there would be no need for a manager. But no, the price on the box was 64. The item was not on sale (what you see on the reciept is toysrus manually inserting a new price, its a work around).
If the price scanned was $6.99, then he wouldnt need to call the manager, but he did.The OP stated that. Thats why it was only after the box was scanned (at $64) that he said the price on the shelf was the following and that he wanted it to match this:

Which, as you can see, is not the price of the toy, and nor was it the price on the box. The OP knew that. And the manager obliged.

So now that you know the facts (that the box was 64$ and that he asked for it to match 6.99 instead) does that change your thoughts?