Bob, I asked Henry a question which he needn't have responded to, but he did so in a respectful manner. I simply responded back with my further thoughts, also in a respectful manner. His answer led to me having a better understanding of the issue, irregardless of whether I think the solution was best.
Tom C. On 2/3/10, Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > You're like an old dog with a bone. > Leave it alone already! Let it die here. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thank you for the response Henry. I read/skimmed the The Equitable >> Doctrine of Unilateral Mistake. Here's my thoughts and I preface they >> are obviously simply my opinions: >> >> http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/vol1/a002groebner.html >> >> 1. I couldn't find whether the The Equitable Doctrine of Unilateral >> Mistake is simply that, or if it really has any basis in law. Since >> the article I read came from a law journal, I assume it must at least >> have been recognized in legal decisions that set precedents. >> >> 2. In either case it is very vague and fuzzy and open to much >> interpretation. >> >> 3. As you mentioned, it speaks of "When online retailers make honest, >> good-faith pricing mistakes that result in huge losses to the benefit >> of opportunistic online shoppers, their mistake could be grounds for >> rescinding the unfavorable contract under the doctrine of unilateral >> mistake". >> >> 4. I question whether the amount of money involved in this >> transaction, represented a 'huge loss'. Since I don't have near the >> annual revenue of B&H, and I wouldn't consider it a *huge* loss if I >> lost $250 personally, I would say it does not represent a huge loss >> for B&H either. I admit I don't know where I'd draw the line, but I >> know it would not be at $250. Earlier in the document it cites losses >> in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars that >> have been incurred by online retailers, because of pricing mistakes in >> automated systems. I can certainly understand why a retailer would >> want to prevent those kinds of losses, and doing so is indeed fair to >> the retailer. >> >> 5. The offer to sell the 2nd speaker at cost with free shipping was a >> move in the right direction. Not knowing what that cost is, it's hard >> to judge how much of a concession it was. However, I can understand >> at least, the principle of compromising so that the buyer gets a lower >> price, and the retailer does not lose their entire item cost. >> >> 6. I still think it would have been better, and in the long term >> interests of both customer loyalty and B&H's reputation, to simply >> honor the original contract as it stood. >> >> Thank you again. >> >> Tom C. >> >>> Actually I was emailing replies all along. Unfortunately for me I'd >>> registered here under [email protected] and learned only this >>> morning that our back-end people had changed me to [email protected] so >>> every message I'd sent here bounced. Since the topic has died down I >>> don't think tossing gas on dieing embers is particularly fruitful. The >>> product in question was not a Pentax product and the customer in question >>> is, as far as I can tell, not a subscriber to this group. >>> >>> I am reluctant to go too far OT, but briefly we sell a particular speaker >>> for 250.00 each. We inadvertently posted on our site the speaker was >>> selling for 250.00/pair. The customer placed an order which was >>> transmitted to the warehouse where they were unaware of the site error >>> and shipped the customer a speaker. He contacted us and we offered a >>> variety of reasonable compromises including the chance to buy the 2nd >>> speaker for our cost with free shipping. Lawyers I know say a compromise >>> is when both parties are equally dissatisfied. We were unable to reach a >>> compromise with the customer. We regret the error and regret not being >>> able to come to a compromise. >>> >>> Someone speculated about the original review disappearing from the site. >>> The author of the review revised it. That sent it from active to pending >>> status. Once the pending period expired the review returned to >>> visibility. B&H had nothing to do wit that. >>> >>> Regarding legalities, our site and our site's disclaimer and our response >>> to this situation have all been vetted by our in-house lawyer. We are >>> confident of the legality. I believe my first post, forwarded by another >>> member of this group, referenced The Equitable Doctrine of Unilateral >>> Mistake. It is germane. >>> >>> On a personal note, one person here posted the following at various >>> times: >>> "Posner's whine ...Posner's just the waterboy for them...B&H lied about >>> their pricing...So, we now have B&H Photo who come off looking like a >>> bunch of lying scumbags...attack dog Posner..." >>> >>> I'd like to think it's possible to engage in a reasonable dialogue here >>> and disagree with one another without resorting to venal personal >>> invective and insults. >>> >>> -- - >>> >>> regards, >>> Henry Posner >>> B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> > > -- > 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.
