The Energon Pub

Just wanted to quickly answer Will's question.

william-james88 wrote:So now I ask you all with this concrete example, would you do it?

Hell no! But I've never been a gambling man, or known as a risk taker.
I see stuff on the wrong peg all the time. In fact just today at Target I saw RID Battle packs on Gen Legend's pegs. I LOLed because it made me think of this thread.

william-james88 wrote:

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?

Answered already. If the result is ambiguous I won't push the issue unless I really really want the item. Trouble is, it may result to either a slam dunk bargain or a x3 price jump.So not really worth the effort.

I just follow what's on the tag.If you (fill in the blank of poster) base an argument on just what shelf an item is on and the barcode says otherwise with a store manager, you are just asking for a major embarrassment on your part.

On the other hand, as again I mentioned referencing on what happened at Amazon.com where a glitch(?) gave away SoC Daltanious for as much as 60% off...........well, LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY!

P.S.

Going with technicalities, a manager, despite all his infinite powers can't just dunk the SRP on his say so unless the price matrix has been encoded to the system. He's doing so will end up with him getting a pay cut for the item forcibly discounted.

fenrir72 wrote:On the other hand, as again I mentioned referencing on what happened at Amazon.com where a glitch(?) gave away SoC Daltanious for as much as 60% off...........well, LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY!

The Amazon glitch is not the situation of the OP here.

That glitch would be similar to the wrong price in the internal system. Meaning the store have to suck it.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:On the other hand, as again I mentioned referencing on what happened at Amazon.com where a glitch(?) gave away SoC Daltanious for as much as 60% off...........well, LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY!

The Amazon glitch is not the situation of the OP here.

That glitch would be similar to the wrong price in the internal system. Meaning the store have to suck it.

So the manager is going to get a pay cut? Or will he chalk this to acceptable losses in profit? Assuming (emphasis on assuming) again that the OP pulled a fast one.

fenrir72 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:On the other hand, as again I mentioned referencing on what happened at Amazon.com where a glitch(?) gave away SoC Daltanious for as much as 60% off...........well, LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY!

The Amazon glitch is not the situation of the OP here.

That glitch would be similar to the wrong price in the internal system. Meaning the store have to suck it.

So the manager is going to get a pay cut? Or will he chalk this to acceptable losses in profit? Assuming (emphasis on assuming) again that the OP pulled a fast one.

Yup, and that was "legal" theft.

So let me throw this scenario out there ...

A few months back I was approached by a licensed second hand dealer who knew I played the Trumpet. She wanted my opinion on a Trumpet she had acquired through a garage sale (yeah ... I was the "buddy" to her Rick).

GF and I went to the shop and she brought out the Trumpet. When she opened the case our jaws dropped. It was a 1957 Boosey & Hawkes, in near perfect condition. We were prepared to offer her $500 knowing all too well it was worth 2-3 times that.

She offered first. $300. We didn't argue, we grabbed it. It cost an extra $200 in repairs, so in total it cost $500, and given it's condition and quality, it could now fetch 3-4 times that.

So ... we knew the value of it and it was much more than what she had on it.

So, did we therefore commit theft? Was the seller incompetent? Did we commit fraud?

Because I see a direct parallel between my scenario and that of the original OP. He obtained something at much lesser value than what he knew it was worth, just like we did.

Burn wrote:So let me throw this scenario out there ...

A few months back I was approached by a licensed second hand dealer who knew I played the Trumpet. She wanted my opinion on a Trumpet she had acquired through a garage sale (yeah ... I was the "buddy" to her Rick).

GF and I went to the shop and she brought out the Trumpet. When she opened the case our jaws dropped. It was a 1957 Boosey & Hawkes, in near perfect condition. We were prepared to offer her $500 knowing all too well it was worth 2-3 times that.

She offered first. $300. We didn't argue, we grabbed it. It cost an extra $200 in repairs, so in total it cost $500, and given it's condition and quality, it could now fetch 3-4 times that.

So ... we knew the value of it and it was much more than what she had on it.

So, did we therefore commit theft? Was the seller incompetent? Did we commit fraud?

Because I see a direct parallel between my scenario and that of the original OP. He obtained something at much lesser value than what he knew it was worth, just like we did.

Your situation is not a direct parallel. In your scenario, you were offered a super-low price on the spot for the item. It was worth that amount to the seller. The seller offered that to you and you accepted. There is nothing to say "you should have paid more because you knew it was worth more". Absolutely "take the money and run here".

In the OPs situation, he campaigned on the falsehood that the item was incorrectly marked, whereas it was really just incorrectly placed after the item was rung up with the correct price. Whether the item was placed incorrectly by employee laziness or whatever is irrelevant. Ethically it is pretty questionable to premeditate to go to the counter and attempt to force the store to honor a shelf peg that is not marked for the item simply because the item was placed there. Basically, a "gotcha". The manager probably let him have it to avoid a complaint, but I'm sure there is a brevity of detail not being conveyed in the OP. It probably took considerable argument to get him to lose 50+ dollars to appease a customer trying to get over.

This happens every day in a million stores across the world, I'm sure. However, he was the one who came in here and bragged about it to the cheers of many.

Burn wrote:She offered first. $300. We didn't argue, we grabbed it. It cost an extra $200 in repairs, so in total it cost $500, and given it's condition and quality, it could now fetch 3-4 times that.
So ... we knew the value of it and it was much more than what she had on it.
So, did we therefore commit theft? Was the seller incompetent? Did we commit fraud?
Because I see a direct parallel between my scenario and that of the original OP. He obtained something at much lesser value than what he knew it was worth, just like we did.

I dont see how that is remotely similar. You didnt lie, ever. They didnt even ask you what it was worth. Its not like the price of the trumpet was $700 and you said "well, in this condition, its worth way less, and with the costs of repair that would be close to $400, you'd be lucky to sell this for more than $300 so thats the best I can do". You didnt scam anyone, they asked for $300 and you gave hem what they wanted. And its not even a retail store with a bar code, its second hand, thats a different market alltoghether (even taxed differently for businesses). I know you are looking for similarities in morality, but the situation is very different. Toysrus said the item was $65, which it is, and he lied and said no its not and gave a phoney price that was unrelated, knowingly.

If you want to look at another example,I offered precicely the same scenario below and I would love to have your input:

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, 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?

The time stamp of the pic of the shelf i took was 10:26am.. my reciept says 10:32am... that whole scenario took place quicker than it took some of you to type your responses lol

I think I'm going to start a new thread where people can post their mispriced TF stories, this has been entertaining.

EDIT: that power rangers toy is a perfect example. employee placed merchandised fully stocked behind an employee placed tag. grab that zoid and enjoy your discount

Its not really entertaining. Its just starting more fights than we need.

Nobody is fighting. Everyone is playing very nice. No matter how strongly they feel either way.

claborn wrote:EDIT: that power rangers toy is a perfect example. employee placed merchandised fully stocked behind an employee placed tag. grab that zord and enjoy your discount

Thanks, I thought it was a good example for people to give their input on and I thank you for yours. I wonder what everyone else reading this thread would do.

william-james88 wrote:

claborn wrote:EDIT: that power rangers toy is a perfect example. employee placed merchandised fully stocked behind an employee placed tag. grab that zord and enjoy your discount

Thanks, I thought it was a good example for people to give their input on and I thank you for yours. I wonder what everyone else reading this thread would do.

I answered, did you miss it?

Cobotron wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

claborn wrote:EDIT: that power rangers toy is a perfect example. employee placed merchandised fully stocked behind an employee placed tag. grab that zord and enjoy your discount

Thanks, I thought it was a good example for people to give their input on and I thank you for yours. I wonder what everyone else reading this thread would do.

I answered, did you miss it?

I didnt miss it (Kanrabat did as well), and I thank you too But others didnt and I was asking them. As the OP stated, its the easiest way to express exactly what oen thinks is right or wrong without the need for slightly similar situations or hypothetical situations.
And better yet, I am asking you all if I should do it.

william-james88 wrote: I am asking you all if I should do it.

I've never precieved you to be that big of a risk taker. If you did do it, how would you feel afterwards? OF course, if you wanted to it just as a social experiment, you could walk away no matter the out come. But more simply put, no, I don't think you should.

I quickly Googled "US laws governing mispriced consumer goods", and this is what I found. It even pertains specifically to the State of California.
Honestly, I'm not sure I am interpreting it all correctly.

Cobotron wrote:

william-james88 wrote: I am asking you all if I should do it.

I've never precieved you to be that big of a risk taker. If you did do it, how would you feel afterwards? OF course, if you wanted to it just as a social experiment, you could walk away no matter the out come. But more simply put, no, I don't think you should.

I quickly Googled "US laws governing mispriced consumer goods", and this is what I found. It even pertains specifically to the State of California.
Honestly, I'm not sure I am interpreting it all correctly.

Thanks Cobo, the link answers the question well, it is all related to the price corresponding t the product.

(a) It is unlawful for any person, at the time of sale of a commodity, to do any of the following:
(1) Charge an amount greater than the price, or to compute an amount greater than a true extension of a price per unit, that is then advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted for that commodity.

(2) Charge an amount greater than the lowest price posted on the commodity itself or on a shelf tag that corresponds to the commodity, notwithstanding any limitation of the time period for which the posted price is in effect.

But I think we knew that (right?). The store is not obliged at all to sell it for an amount not corresponding to the product. If the price tag is not related, then end of discussion, the laws presented above no longer apply and there is no recourse to them for the consumer.

I think the real debate here is if what the OP did was correct at all. This confirms there is no law backing up his actions, he wasn't in the right to do it, but was he in the wrong? I think that is more where this is heading.

And dont worry I wont go get that megazord today. I dont like making a scene and people would definitely look at me funny. There are tons of toys in the wrong places, if every person who was upset by this and tried to pull the stunt then it would truly be chaotic. And there is no recourse anyway. We arent in the right to demand a price match (by law at least) when the tag is for a different product than the one we want .

For those looking for a moral explanation, tldr, we're doing the store a favor.

There are legal issues the store could deal with if enough customers complain about misprices.

Somebody was going to have a price issue with BB that day. Like I said there was a guy already there contemplating exactly what I did. My life's philosophy is "it's going to be somebody, might as well be you." An old lady, a kid, a parent, somebody was going to see that and somebody would have got mp bb for $6.99. That's 100% fact.

Now where I differ from just any old "somebody" is im just going to take my discount and go home. Post about it and that's it. Somebody else might want to talk to a district manager or call the BBB. This is a serious offense for a store, that's why they don't mind honoring it. "If they complain, we might have to go to court and fines... just honor it". Think of it like a premeditated court settlement. the fact i left peacefully is even better. They WANT people like us to find these mistakes before some crazy person out to destroy the world does.

Also to note most of the time, retail employees just don't care. I've gone back to some places and they didn't even correct the tag.

william-james88 wrote:

claborn wrote:EDIT: that power rangers toy is a perfect example. employee placed merchandised fully stocked behind an employee placed tag. grab that zord and enjoy your discount

Thanks, I thought it was a good example for people to give their input on and I thank you for yours. I wonder what everyone else reading this thread would do.

I would not try to get it at that price. I would feel dirty trying that.

If the 99.99 tag was attached to the boxes I would expect it to be 99.99 and I would buy it.

But this:

e) Except as provided in subdivision (f), for purposes of this section, when more than one price for the same commodity is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted, the person offering the commodity for sale shall charge the lowest of those prices.

I think the word displayed is the sticky one here.

I would guess the manager of TRU, in a split second reaction, was probably trying to avoid this:

so wait. Dumb this down.

If somebody changes a sticker or if it is simply a misprinted sticker we not only have to sell them the merchandise at that price we must sell all duplicates of that merchandise at that price?

But I bet you read legalese better than I do.

Cobotron wrote:But this:

e) Except as provided in subdivision (f), for purposes of this section, when more than one price for the same commodity is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted, the person offering the commodity for sale shall charge the lowest of those prices.

I think the word displayed is the sticky one here.

Its not a sticky point since all of that is preceded by the notion that its for the same product.

So, since the price posted is not for the same product, then its case closed and there is 0 legal recourse to the customer. But as the OP posted, this isnt about legality, its about not wanting people complaining to corporate. Though I highly doubt corporate gives a crap. TRU Canada has often left me at the mercy of a store's manager, like with the rainchecks, and if its between making sure someone doesnt complain and giving them a $50 present I am still surprised it went that way. But we cant forget the notion that there was undisclosed info on the consumer's part during the interaction (ie that the tag was not for that product).

william-james88 wrote:So, since the price posted is not for the same product, then its case closed and there is 0 legal recourse to the customer. But as the OP posted, this isnt about legality, its about not wanting people complaining to corporate. Though I highly doubt corporate gives a crap. TRU Canada has often left me at the mercy of a store's manager, like with the rainchecks, and if its between making sure someone doesnt complain and giving them a $50 present I am still surprised it went that way. But we cant forget the notion that there was undisclosed info on the consumer's part during the interaction (ie that the tag was not for that product).

That's the part you guys are misunderstanding. Whats on the tag is irrelevant. The main issue is it's not MP BB's tag.

The tag and the product have to match, it's that simple.

claborn wrote:The main issue is it's not MP BB's tag.

Did you say that to the manager?

That under BB was the tag for a different product?

william-james88 wrote:

claborn wrote:The main issue is it's not MP BB's tag.

Did you say that to the manager?

That under BB was the tag for a different product?

i didnt have to, he knew by looking at it when he saw the shelf.

claborn wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

claborn wrote:The main issue is it's not MP BB's tag.

Did you say that to the manager?

That under BB was the tag for a different product?

i didnt have to, he knew by looking at it when he saw the shelf.

OK, here's a question for the OP:

You saw the tag was for a different item than MP Bumblebee i.e. the tag and item did not match. At that point, you were presented with a choice:

A) Shrug it off and pretend nothing happened
B) Notify an employee and have the store fix the issue
C) Take advantage of it and get MP Bumblebee for cheap, despite the repercussions against the store.

Just why did you choose for C?

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:A) Shrug it off and pretend nothing happened
B) Notify an employee and have the store fix the issue
C) Take advantage of it and get MP Bumblebee for cheap, despite the repercussions against the store.

Just why did you choose for C?

I hope he doesnt mind me talking for him, but we are going in circles at this point, he said why.

Its because if he didnt, someone else w/could and he would preffer it be him who gets the toy for cheap.

At this point, its just a question of each of our morality. I am just surprised the store agreed to it since I know for sure mine wouldnt (thus why I dont dare ask my TRu for a 150$ discount on the megazord) and there isnt any consumer law asking that the store honour a price of another item.