Joe was browsing through his CompUSA catalog and noticed a good deal on a video card, but when he tried to order it he was told that it was a misprint and that CompUSA wouldn’t be honoring the advertised price.
I’ve always been a good customer for Compusa, even after their local stores here closed and they went to catalog and online sales only. I’ve ordered a full computer for my inlaws less than 3 months ago, and several parts from their online or catalog advertising they send me via mail or email.
This week I received a catalog in the mail from Compusa. The front says Vol. I Issue 6BE. I was paging through the catalog like I normally do to see what they have. I noticed a videocard that looked to be a good deal and I was interested in it. I tried to order this card yesterday morning.
The videocard is a Visiontek Radeon HD 3870 X2 Overclocked Edition which is advertised in the catalog on page 54 for $114.99 twice including a picture of the actual card. When I went to their website I saw the card was $399.99 at this link:
I thought, wow, what a good deal. I must have to call into the # on the catalog to get this pricing they are advertising. So I called into the # on the catalog (1-800-COMPUSA) and waited to talk to a sales rep. A guy answered the phone and I told him I received the catalog mailer and would like to order a video card. He asked for the part # and I said V261-3874. He said ok, and asked for the priority code listed on the back of the catalog I received. I told him that info was KFE-2801. He said ok, I see we have that card for $399.99, how many would you like? I said I am interested but the catalog pricing shows $114.99 not only once, but twice in the ad with a picture of the videocard.
I was put on hold for several minutes. He returned talking frantic and said that it was a misprint in the ad and that their cost for the card was much more than the advertised price. I said ok, but I want the advertised price, it wasn’t an error in one spot, you show this card part # for $114.99 twice on the same page. He said they would not honor the mistake and that if I wanted one I would have to pay $399.99 for it. I said, what are you doing for those who got the mailer with this pricing. He became rude and told me I was one of about 600 people who tried to call in and get this deal and they are not helping anyone for that type of price. He immediately went on to ask me if there was anything else I would like to order instead. I asked again if they were honoring their advertised pricing and he said no and have a good day.
Typically, stores aren’t required obvious misprints such as a car for $200.00, etc. Things get a little foggy when the misprint isn’t obviously a typo. Usually what a reputable store will do in a situation like this is to post a notice informing their customers that there’s been a misprint. For example, placing a notice on the CompUSA website would have been the appropriate thing to do in this case. What’s not ok is to wait for their customers to call about the mistake and then offer to sell them the video card at a higher price. CompUSA should be making an effort to inform their customers that there’s been a misprint in their catalog.
More From Consumerist
-
Move Over Santa: Consumer Reports Issues List Of Naughty & Nice Companies
-
Newegg Deducts $70 From Return For Cost Of “Free” Video Game
-
Just What We Don’t Need — More Gift Cards! And This One’s From Facebook
-
Target Sells Lots Of Reservation Cards For ‘The Avengers’ Blu-Ray, Forgets To Order Discs
-
Walmart Self-Checkout Shorts Customer $40, Manager Insists It Didn't
Just got the B2B catalog from tigerdirect and got the same thing with
the same price. I called, they said that it was a misprint (obviously,
given my foreknowledge of the price of the card), but I find it funny
that it’s in both.
ETC, Victor and others who keep saying AD…
this wasn’t an ad…this was a requested catalog…
as in an index of inventory and prices…there are few retail stores for this company now…
what is the policy on a catalog?
If a company chooses to replace their stores with a book of items and prices…this is not a circular in the sunday paper..this is an actual store replacement..
no one has mentioned or considered this in all of the comments so far…
and also…how does one get 114 from 399? Twice none the less…
I mean if it said 199, or some variable of this I could understand…
but my major point is catalog not flier…not advertisement..
oh wait, I didn’t read the entire thing, turns out that they are owned
by them. That makes sense given the identical part number….didn’t
think the consumer td.com catalog had the same misprint though……
@chris101d:
I think catalog is closer to flyer/ad than it is to store. I’d say “order form” is closer to store, but the simple catalog itself is still essentially a big ad. You still have to contact the company to purchase the items.
@chris101d:
Inventory catalogs aren’t considered offers. If you received an estimate from the vendor, then that would be considered an offer. I understand your viewpoint that it is a tad bit more “grey” regarding price lists, but unless they are presented as estimates (and have a limited term of eligibility assigned to it) I think you will have a hard time alleging that it was a credible offer.
Don’t forget, the burden would be on you, as the claimant, to prove that a valid offer existed.
@Captain_Collide:
So you demand the benefit of the doubt that you are unwilling to give to the retailer?
You are a representative of yourself. Why is there a different moral standard if you are a company, then if you are a person? Whether or not they are trying to keep the loyalty of the customer is irrelevant. You are claiming that the decision to not “honor” their obviously mistaken pricing is rife with moral turpitude, and I still would like to know where you come to that conclusion.
To those that keep repeating that the vendor was lying, and misleading their customers…don’t you think that they would make the price somewhat believable if that was in fact their intention? I also find it exceptionally humorous that people concede that the company made a mistake, and then will use the term mislead in the very same passage. Either we speak different languages, or my command of the English language is sub-par…because mislead insinuates intention.
Nothing stops them from refusing to honor mislabeled pricing in the store…and the same sentiment stands there. Who cares whether it was through a flyer or in store…if the pricing was mislabeled…how were you damaged?
Fine, offer him 10% of their normal price as a conciliatory gesture. Hopefully that will save him even more than he could get from other vendors, if not, then it is within the bounds of reason that he could vote with his money and purchase the product elsewhere.
There are millions of instances where consumers are legitimately wronged or taken advantage of…championing against trite and asinine claims such as this just dilutes the cause of consumerist, and makes us look like we have a mob mentality.
I don’t mean to lash out and single you out, but as someone else stated, consumerist has turned mostly into a whine fest. Whenever someone doesn’t like something that happened to them, they come onto consumerist to whine and vilify. That isn’t what consumerist is about.
Let’s get consumerist back on track so I don’t have to sift through 25 posts of bitching everyday just to find the one gem.
@etc: “Whenever someone doesn’t like something that happened to them, they come onto consumerist to whine and vilify. That isn’t what consumerist is about.”
Agreed. Consider it put to bed.
I got a $900 knife set for $130 bucks because a certain website listed the price wrong. While that company was only the middle man, the selling company was 5 stars in my book and honored the price. They also quickly removed the rest of their offerings from this middle man site.
I wasn’t made aware of the discrepancy until after I placed my order and entered my credit card info etc.
I was always taught companies are required to honor advertised prices. Doing nothing at all is poor business.
On the other hand, I can’t remember a visit to my local grocery store when I didn’t see an “Pricing Error in this weeks’ flyer” with the corrected info.
I would personally have taken a discount. It shows they are trying in good faith to keep my business, in light of a costly mistake.
It’s pretty disgusting to me that there is even a debate about this. I could understand if the price was close and still off, but thats like a $300 profit for the consumer. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to try and see if you can get that price, knowing that it’s an obvious error. When you’re denied, why would you get all pissy about it and make ridiculous demands, again, knowing that you’re trying to put one over on them and not the other way around?
Where the hell are your morals?
@testsicles:
subliminal suggestion
Now that I think about it, wasn’t TigerDirect the company that started the whole receipt-checking jihad here? Just saying…
Are most of you here purporting to be gaming / computer experts, knowing which video card costs $100 and which $400? In the computer market, with prices dropping so fast the casual observer would have no way of knowing that card cost $400 and not $100. But all of this is beside the point. A firm offer was made, no attempt was made to revoke it before the customer’s acceptance, and a contract was born. The seller can’t back out now. Plenty of caselaw on this starting with LEFKOWITZ v. GREAT MINNEAPOLIS SURPLUS STORE. If there were a misprint exception, then every bait and switch con artist could claim they misprinted the price. You can argue about morals all you want but OP should have good recourse in a small claims court for damages of 399.99-114.99.
@agency:
Even though they clearly state they may not honor typos?
I don’t think so.
@agency:
No offense, but you are a blithering idiot. I have to be harsh because of the fact that you are proliferating such misinformation regarding the law.
Where do you get your information from? Because it isn’t from reality.
The fact is, unless the ad had specific quantities, and or specific directions, common law has stated that it is NOT a firm offer. Either you got your information from a terrible source, or you are just a moron.
Also, recourse for contract breaches are rarely based on expectation damages, but rather reliance damages. The fact that you state there might be a claim is just patently false.
Get your facts straight before you run your mouth. You’ve been watching too much Judge Judy, and think you know the law now I guess. Turn off Judge Joe Brown.
In Lefkowitz they were clear that the differentiating factor was the time posted, as well as the “first come first served” remark. Did you even READ the case, or did you just read it somewhere and took from it what you wanted.
Better stick to your dayjob goober.
For the record:
“The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in advertisements addressed to the
general public is “whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms
in return for something requested.” 1 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS § 27 (Rev. ed. 1936).”
further on in the opinion…
” Whether in any individual instance a newspaper advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depends on the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. We are of the view on the facts before us that the offer by the defendant of the
sale of the Lapin fur was clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation. The plaintiff having successful managed to be the first one to appear at the seller’s place of business to be served, as requested by the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, he was entitled to performance on the part of the defendant. We think the trial court was correct in holding that there was in the conduct of the parties a sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.”
It is the mutuality of obligation, and the specifics surrounding the offer that made the advertisement a unilateral offer. It was not its presence as an advertisement in and of itself.
and for final reference…
“… where an advertiser publishes in a newspaper that he has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices and on certain terms, such advertisements are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they may come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a
certain quantity of them. Such advertisements have been construed as an invitation for an offer of sale on the terms stated, which offer, when received, may be accepted or rejected and which therefore does not become a contract of sale until accepted by the seller; and until a contract has
been so made, the seller may modify or revoke such prices or terms. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Johnson, 95 N.E. 290 (Mass. 1911); Nickel v. Theresa Farmers Co-op. Ass’n, 20 N.W.2d 117
(Wis. 1945); Lovett v. Frederick Loeser & Co., 207 N.Y.S. 753 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. 1924); Schenectady Stove Co. v. Holbrook, 4 N.E. 4 (N.Y. 1885); Georgian Co. v. Bloom, 108 S.E. 813
(Ga. Ct. App. 1921); Craft v. Elder & Johnson Co., 38 N.E.2d 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1941).”
@agency: Dude, did you even READ leftkowitz vs great minneapolis surplus store?
The reason that case mattered was because the advertisement was lying about “first come, first served”, because the store owner refused to sell the first comer, first server, because that person was male.
@etc: everything you said? golf clap right here.
I used to work clothing retail. A few times a shirt was mis-labeled with a cheaper price. Because it was our mistake, the store was willing to honor the item at that price.
I bet your shirt wasn’t $300 off.
And yea, I am purporting to be a “computer expert.” I had two single-GPU 3870 models in my pc as of a month ago that cost my about $450 total. An X2 (same thing, one card) cost about $50 more at $450-500 during that time. It is -still- top of the line, but selling for about $50-100 less at the moment due to the 4850/4870 release and nvidia’s offerings (one of which, the $350 9800 gtx ssc, is letting me type this now.)
TL:DR, these won’t be $100 within 3 years.
@rdldr1: This situation was not in store. If it was, they may have honored it (most likely not). Print ads mean diddly squat. Typos happen and the advertiser is not obligated to honor them.
CompUSA is not the CompUSA of old. They are the sleezy TigerDirect. Some may be lucky and have no problem with them but it is a known fact that they do not honor a majority of the rebates that they offer.
@etc:
Damned lawyers (or lawyers in training), always offering up arguments that have real support behind them.
First off, no “casual consumer” (e.g. non-tech/geek/gaming nerd) is going to bother swapping out their video card, so the argument that the OP didn’t know what they were buying can pretty much go out the window. If that’s not enough, as others have pointed out, the single card version was listed right above it. Finally, it’s pretty obvious that it’s a typo. The card listed underneath it is also listed at $114.99. Whoever composed the page just pasted the wrong value in and didn’t catch it, and then duplicated what they had below when they added the picture. Chances are, the person actually putting the page together would be one of your “casual consumers” and wouldn’t recognize the blunder.
And what more could CompTigerUSADirect do to correct the error short of what they did (tell the OP when he called in that the price was wrong)? OK, yeah, putting it on the website would be good, but beyond that? Should they have to send a certified letter to everyone they sent the catalog to just to make them aware of the mistake?
@Pylon83: Ads ARE OFFERS. If not, define offer, and ad, in legal terms, valid to whatever state you want.
Also to point out, the normally clocked version is 80 dollars more then the typo (Or “TRANSPOSITION ERROR”) while the lower end model is the same price, yet is agp, unlinked dvi (2 vs 4) and 256mb.
ITS AN OBVIOUS ERROR.
@etc: who cares what you say, you’re bald.
CompUSA/Tiger Direct is in business to make money. The margin on computer hardware is tight. They might be making 10% off that card.
If they were to honor the price and lose $250 they have to sell that customer another $2500 worth of stuff just to break even again. Probably not going to happen so it is better for them to risk loosing a customer than it would be to loose the money.
I don’t understand why a person would want a product under these conditions. Why is it that the company that made an error is evil and must be destroyed while the person trying to take advantage of the company is beyond reproach? An honest person would call the company to inform them of the error. A thief would call and try to get one before the company figured it out.
Steve B.
@testsicles:
I’m 25…I’m not bald, nor do I have a receding hairline. I shave my head. But your comment did make me laugh. Kudos.
If I was a representative of CompUSA, I would have simply offered the 512 MB version (listed for $194.99) for that price as a goodwill offer. Simply say “We’re sorry, we screwed up and made an error. However, because of the overwhelming number of calls in response to this advertisement, we have decided to offer the 3870 model for $114.99 for any customers that we’ve inconvenienced.”
It not only shows that you’re taking the initiative in identifying and correcting an issue, but you’re also giving a good discount to users. Most people may have seen that ad and said “Hey, I wanted the 512 MB card, but HOLY MOSES look at the price on that 1 GB.” If you offer them the 512 MB version, you’re taking less of a hit (as a company) than you would giving out the 1 GB for $115 and you’re still probably giving people what they may be happy to purchase.
Just my $0.02.
Um, did you REALLY think inCOMPetentUSA would be any different as an online only company??????? You MUST be a moron
Even in death, CompUSA continues to haunt users. Shame though, and here I thought TigerDirect could turn them around. Boy, was I wrong…
@Jbball:
The reason this is an issue is that the “misprint” thing is commonly a version of the venerable old con, the “bait and switch.” A customer enters a store advertising an excellent deal and is told that they’re sold out, but that there’s another product for sale that’s comparable but not as deeply discounted. The customer, having invested time and energy in the store and having gotten excited over the prospect of taking home the product, buys the item against his or her better judgment.
Because of the prevalence of the bait and switch, actions such as conveniently misprinted prices often fall under criminal fraud laws, and if the misprint isn’t obvious, the company may be required to honor the advertisement, regardless of any compusa policies to the contrary. The point of contention here seems to be whether the price advertised is so far off as to constitute “obviously misprinted.”
I’m the OP that sent in this info. I appreciate all the comments above. I don’t believe I’m a moron for calling in on what looks to be a good price on a product in a catalog that I get sent because I’m existing customer. This wasn’t a flier placed into everyone’s mailbox.
It clearly has my existing customer number posted on the catalog and I did look for verbage for misprints before sending in this information to this website. There is no verbage in the catalog regarding a misprint and how they will not be honored etc.
I viewed the catalog as a mailed pricing list directly to a specific consumer that has been a loyal customer. The representative on the phone could have easily asked me for my customer information or identication # and looked to see I’ve put in several orders in the past 2 months and spent a good amount of money with their company.
I could easily go with another online vendor instead. I didn’t call in with bad intentions or to get in argument with the rep. I was polite on the phone and things were fine until the rep put me on hold and came back lumping me in with 600 other people who supposedly called in and then was very rude to me. I wish I would have recorded it after reading some of the responses above.
I would have been fine with them saying something like, yes this was a misprint and they honored their existing ‘preferred’, yes I’d say preferred because they are specifically sending you this pricelist due to past purchase history, by selling existing stock at that advertised price until the item was sold out and they did not feel backordering the item for a loss was a good business decision. What I wasn’t expecting was for a customer service rep to lose his cool and nearly yell and insult me over the phone for politely asking them to honor this ad they sent me.
I’m just a consumer trying to continue doing business with a retailer I’ve been happy with up to this point.
Boy this guy is a jerk. Trying to get something for nothing. Its obvious in the ad that its a misprint. Look at the price for the lower grade video card, ITS THE SAME PRICE. He’s lucky he called to order, because if he came to my store with that attitude, I would have thrown him out and called the cops.
@jhuehne:
No, you were a consumer that was trying to take advantage of a mistake. Your submitted this to consumerist not because you were yelled at, you submitted it because you thought you should have gotten the product for that price. That is obvious when looking at your choice of words as you try to spin your side…price list, specific customer etc.
The fact is, they don’t need “verbage” regarding not honoring price mistakes.
No one should fault you for calling, but you should be faulted as one of the individuals that has turned consumerist into a giant whine and bitch fest.
The caliber of entries that are worthwhile on consumerist is dwindling. This kind of garbage is tripe, and should be left off lest Consumerist be viewed as just a joke, and not be able to leverage its power any longer…and it is skirting dangerously close to that point.
The smart move for the company would have been to send out an apology letter stating that there was a misprint with a 20% off coupon on video cards. The cost of sending that out and the discount wouldn’t be nearly as bad as honoring the misprinted price.
And yeah, I don’t know what video cards should cost-these aren’t things I price out often, so I think that assuming it’s a great sale isn’t unreasonable.
@etc: “Ads aren’t considered advertisements.” No? what are they then? I always assumed that “ad” was short for “advertisement”. Pray, enlighten us, oh wise one…
@Mike the Dog: Note to self… Check the date before whipping off snarky retort…