GHL On Sale - BRS

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Whoa, 37 pages? I hope no one is losing sleep over this.

I am aiming for 100. Repetition for retention. lol

 

[MnFish1]

I know one thing we agree one….If someone only reads one page…and then posts a pic of the “Bulk Reef Terms” all of us can agree to go postal.

Not like we got 750 comments in and then thought……Maybe we should check the terms!!!! @Mywifeisgunnakillme and @BroccoliFarmer can both recite them by memory.

thanks for moderating the thread

 

[Acros]

Whoa, 37 pages? I hope no one is losing sleep over this.

Some definitely are! lol

 

[((FORDTECH))]

Whoa, 37 pages? I hope no one is losing sleep over this.

I am now over my jealousy

 

[MnFish1]

Not court decided cases

So, what is new here?

From your quote: "

The law​

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis. The issue gets murky if the retailer begins processing the order, something that is more likely to happen online, says Jane Winn, a professor at the University of Washington Law School. But even then, she says, a merchant might be able to cancel the purchase if the price was so low that a buyer should have known it was mistake. An online retailer's fine print may relieve it of the duty to fulfill orders based on pricing errors."


Now - at least 50-70 percent of people that placed orders did so (no I didnt calculate so don't hold me to it - but - a lot of people who placed orders did so 'knowing' or 'thinking' that this was a mistake - so what exactly are you trying to prove lol

 

[Big Smelly fish]

Whoa, 37 pages? I hope no one is losing sleep over this.

I know Randy isn’t,

 

[((FORDTECH))]

I am actually in the market for 6 more dosers. Was planning to get 4 1.1 brs and 2 50ml brs. Not sure the ghl would have worked for me anyways due to being fully Neptune automated already.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

From your quote: "

The law​

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis. The issue gets murky if the retailer begins processing the order, something that is more likely to happen online, says Jane Winn, a professor at the University of Washington Law School. But even then, she says, a merchant might be able to cancel the purchase if the price was so low that a buyer should have known it was mistake. An online retailer's fine print may relieve it of the duty to fulfill orders based on pricing errors."


Now - at least 50-70 percent of people that placed orders did so (no I didnt calculate so don't hold me to it - but - a lot of people who placed orders did so 'knowing' or 'thinking' that this was a mistake - so what exactly are you trying to prove lol

That's only part of the inquiry (and not the law--its a professor stating an opinion), and second, no one that sued would admit they knew it was a mistake. Just a reality of court proceedings. If any one thinks a law suit turns on the truth or justice--they are sadly mistaken.

 

[John Huynh]

lol 38pages. good way to start your new years.

 

[MnFish1]

That's only part of the inquiry and second, no one that sued would admit they knew it was a mistake. Just a reality of court proceedings. If any one thinks a law suit turns on the truth or justice--they are sadly mistaken.

Just quoted your post. And 1. No one has proven BRS has done anything 'wrong'. 2. They haven't responded. 3. This is a tempest in a teapot. 4. Numerous sources have proved your comments partially - if not totally incorrect. 5. No one is going to sue BRS based on this - so its a moot point. Good night

My guess is that the people who placed orders - from here - who then posted - (paraphrased) - I thought it was a mistake but I took a chance - will have little chance of getting anything - except a refund - which is what they deserve IMHO.

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

From your quote: "

The law​

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis. The issue gets murky if the retailer begins processing the order, something that is more likely to happen online, says Jane Winn, a professor at the University of Washington Law School. But even then, she says, a merchant might be able to cancel the purchase if the price was so low that a buyer should have known it was mistake. An online retailer's fine print may relieve it of the duty to fulfill orders based on pricing errors."


Now - at least 50-70 percent of people that placed orders did so (no I didnt calculate so don't hold me to it - but - a lot of people who placed orders did so 'knowing' or 'thinking' that this was a mistake - so what exactly are you trying to prove lol

Thats not my quote

 

[JNalley]

established where and how? this whole discussion is getting ridiculous - there are multiple examples on the internet about companies honoring or not honoring pricing errors, right?

(Specht v. Netscape Communications. Corp. (2002).

The key points are this:

-The issue here is whether Plaintiffs will be held to an arbitration clause and contractual terms that were inconspicuous due to their online placement.

-...the court held that a reasonably prudent consumer would not assent to contractual terms that are so inconspicuous that they could completely overlook them.

-If a reasonable consumer is not alerted to contractual terms, he cannot assent to same.

-Notice needs to be prominent and stand out so the average website user can’t miss it. Your visitors shouldn’t have to “stumble upon” a link to any of your website agreements.

Those are the findings from the case. It does NOT need be specific to "pricing mistakes" to be applicable to an overlooked Terms and Conditions link placed at the bottom of a website with a dozen or more other links. That alone makes it inconspicuous and not actionable.

 

[Brian_68]

That's only part of the inquiry (and not the law--its a professor stating an opinion), and second, no one that sued would admit they knew it was a mistake. Just a reality of court proceedings. If any one thinks a law suit turns on the truth or justice--they are sadly mistaken.

It really does not matter if they want to admit or not, a retailer is not required to honor regardless if a mistake.

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis.

 

[sam2110]

From your quote: "

The law​

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis. The issue gets murky if the retailer begins processing the order, something that is more likely to happen online, says Jane Winn, a professor at the University of Washington Law School. But even then, she says, a merchant might be able to cancel the purchase if the price was so low that a buyer should have known it was mistake. An online retailer's fine print may relieve it of the duty to fulfill orders based on pricing errors."


Now - at least 50-70 percent of people that placed orders did so (no I didnt calculate so don't hold me to it - but - a lot of people who placed orders did so 'knowing' or 'thinking' that this was a mistake - so what exactly are you trying to prove lol

I just think that everyone will receive an email to say due to supply chain issues caused by covid we are unable to fulfill your offer. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and a full refund has been made.......

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

Just quoted your post. And 1. No one has proven BRS has done anything 'wrong'. 2. They haven't responded. 3. This is a tempest in a teapot. 4. Numerous sources have proved your comments partially - if not totally incorrect. 5. No one is going to sue BRS based on this - so its a moot point. Good night

Again, that's not my quote or post. BRS doing anything wrong or not is irrelevant. They probably will never respond. Why would they to the likes of us? What possible benefit is there? Again, not my comments or quote. Probably no one will sue, but i don't pretend to know what anyone will do. i certainly have seen more annoying lawsuits pursued all the way to the US supreme court (which never took the case).

 

[sam2110]

IMHO you in the UK - as some of my friends in Europe have this idea - that here everyone sues each other - IMHO - not true

In the uk We just deal with it in the car park after hours

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

It really does not matter if they want to admit or not, a retailer is not required to honor regardless if a mistake.

It's generally a myth that retailers must honor a posted price if it's simply a mistake, although some stores might do so as a matter of policy or on a case-by-case basis.

You're just regurgitating a law professor's broad statement about whatever, which was followed by the statement that if the retailer starts to process the order (clearly the case here), her "myth" no longer is a myth...

 

[Brian_68]

(Specht v. Netscape Communications. Corp. (2002).

The key points are this:

-The issue here is whether Plaintiffs will be held to an arbitration clause and contractual terms that were inconspicuous due to their online placement.

-...the court held that a reasonably prudent consumer would not assent to contractual terms that are so inconspicuous that they could completely overlook them.

-If a reasonable consumer is not alerted to contractual terms, he cannot assent to same.

-Notice needs to be prominent and stand out so the average website user can’t miss it. Your visitors shouldn’t have to “stumble upon” a link to any of your website agreements.

Those are the findings from the case. It does NOT need be specific to "pricing mistakes" to be applicable to an overlooked Terms and Conditions link placed at the bottom of a website with a dozen or more other links. That alone makes it inconspicuous and not actionable.

Key points related to hitting a download button for free software, yes.

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corporation | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs

Citation22 Ill.306 F.3d 17, 11 ILRD 832, 2002 ILRC 2017 (2d Cir. 2002) Brief Fact Summary. This case arises from consolidated class-action matters. The Plaintiffs, Specht and others (Plaintiffs), brought suit against the Defendant, Netscape (Defendant). Plaintiffs alleged that because they...

www.casebriefs.com

 

[Chrisv.]

This has to be the least interesting R2R drama in history... Is it too early to nominate a thread of the year for 2022?

 

[Mywifeisgunnakillme]

I just think that everyone will receive an email to say due to supply chain issues caused by covid we are unable to fulfill your offer. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and a full refund has been made.......

Perfect.