Most states have laws that protect the consumer, at least they did the last I knew. If I walk into a retail store and something is mismarked at at lower price on the shelf or in an advertisement, the store is generally required to sell it for that. They'll sometimes try to NOT do that, but insistence or getting a manager involved generally makes them concede and then they correct the pricing error. Many times I've found the retailer to be readily agreeable - 'Yes the price as marked is wrong, but we have to sell it to you at that price'.
Without that kind of protection business would be able to continually lure buyers in with deceptive practices. I don't doubt that it was an honest mistake on B&H's part, but the fair thing for them to do would be to sell it at as advertised, take the hit, and be done with it. The disclaimor that "Prices, specifications, and images are subject to change without notice. Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors", would probably not hold up under the law. Of course they're responsible. It's their site, their business, their advertisement. I'm totally behind the consumer on this one. The right thing for B&H to have done would have been to ship a second speaker. Their attitude stinks and this kind of thing will make me think twice about purchasing from them in the future. It's a matter of principle. And clearly B&H, or this person at B&H devalued their customer. Their customer/customer's future business was not worth $250. The customer was not asking B&H to give him a free speaker. He was asking them to hold up to their side of the bargain and sell him the merchandise they advertised they were selling, as advertised. Tom C. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pretty much the same way as many PDMLers, I've been considering > B&H as a reliable vendor. I've bought a bunch of euqipment from them, > and except for the fact that they wouldn't ship a $40 reflector to > the hotel or to the FedEx office, I had no problem. > > So, I was surprised to read the response from Henry Posner > (whom I rembember when he was responding to complaints on Usenet - > in rec.photo.equipment.35mm back in mid-90s) > to a message from an unfortunate buyer Polymistis (1/26/10, 9:47am) > http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1914-p1-s2-d1.html#reviews > > I am totally surprised why he thinks "I also note our website says, > "Prices, specifications, and images are subject to change without > notice." is an excuse for changing the price (or the item sold) > after the sale has happened. > Well, yes, they made a mistake. I can understand that they don't want > to sell the product at 1/2 price. But then they sholud apologize for > it profusely - why do they blame the buyer for it? > > > On a different subject, - I am rather annoyed by the recent thing > that B&H (and a few other resellers, including Adorama, Buydig, > Amazon, etc.) started doing when they do not show the price on their > website until you add the item to the shopping cart. > Some of them say that it dictated by the manufacturer not allowing > them to display low prices. I am not sure if that's all true, - but > that sounds like a bunch of bologna. > Does anybody know if there is any substantial reason behind that game? > > Igor > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
