Get A Palm Pre For Only $99 At Best Buy...No, Wait, Never Mind
For a brief, shining moment, in-store ads at Best Buy stores advertised a Palm Pre for $99 with a new two-year Sprint contract. Potential Pre customers were stoked. Recent Pre purchasers were incensed. And today, Best Buy was scrambling to fix the situation, since the price drop was really due to an error in the system. Oops.
Best Buy marketing manager John Bernier tweeted that the $99 price in the system was due to "human error," but the price was honored while in the system, and Best Buy will not be chasing down customers who got that price and demanding an extra $100.
On the ground, the Wall Street Journal discovered that not all stores were quite sure what was going on:
On the West Coast, a man from Best Buy's location on Geary Boulevard in San Francisco told me the phone was indeed $99, and that "lots of people came in" to buy it (but then admitted that out of three Pres in stock, they'd sold two). Farther south, in Palo Alto, the Pre was also selling for $99, and the one handset they had in stock had already been sold. In Sunnyvale, a salesman reported that they'd had "quite a few" people come into the store to take advantage of the $99 Pre. When I asked him if he'd heard the $100 price drop might be a mistake, he said, "As far as I know, that's just a special offer we have going on this week."
But at Best Buy's store at 13th and Harrison streets in San Francisco, the salesman told me that the $99 offer might be a glitch in the system. "We're not sure if they're going to change it back tomorrow," he said of the Palm Pre's price, but they had 30 in stock and had already sold 10.
Confusion at Best Buy Over Rumors of a $99 Palm Pre [Wall Street Journal]
Best Buy Selling the Pre for $99 with 2 Year Contract. Update: Oops, it was a Best Buy Error, Price is $199 [Pre Central]
(Photo: Pre Central)
Post a comment
Comments:
@Cantras: Not if was an error in the listing. They don't have to honor it at all if they post corrections
@Cantras: re: "or best offer": Unless you set a closing date for the offer, you could keep the offer open indefinitely until you received an offer you can be happy with. I doubt that one is under any obligation to tell anyone the details of competitive offers, either, so it wouldn't be practical for you to know if your offer was the best.
@Cantras:
Isn't this a moot point since they were honoring the price printed on the signage anyways?
I was able to pick one up yesterday for 108 bucks out the door. :)
this reminds me of the time Apple dropped the iPhone price from $500 to $400 within like one month of the launch and everyone got mad
@Cantras: In contracts, advertisements are always considered invitations to deal, not offers which can be accepted, which would create a contract
This rule come from a case called Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Store, which is very similar
I went with a buddy yesterday so he could check out the pre for $99 and sure enough it was marked $99. Instead I convinced him to get a Iphone but to wait till today to get it so we could do a switch of phones first. So anyway when we go back today to purchase the Iphone we see that the pre is back up to $199. Another gentlmen comes in asking to get the pre for $99 but the manager told him it was never $99, a argument ensues. My friend and I look at each other and shook our heads.
Got a pre today at best buy for $99 in Little Rock. Quite a nice surprise...new, powerful phone for less than $100. Too bad its video support is lacking at the moment.
@Cantras: When you think about it, they don't if head office acts fast enough. Why do you think all the giant grocery stores have big "Corrections" boards to list all the changes to their flyers?
I know where I worked, if a problem like that was discovered, someone at head office would send down correction signage to be placed in front of the product immediately.
@Cantras: "you can't make a legally binding contract to pay someone to NOT do something." Are you sure? I know you consideration in a contract can be forebearance. For example, I'll give you something of value if you waive your right to sue. Or, more commonly seen, employment contracts that famous people have with housekeepers include a provision to not speak to the press. If they breach that provision, suit can be filed against them.
@toyotadiesel: And misprints/errors are shielded.
Although, if a retailer makes too many "mistakes" and there are punishments for that (FTC?). Bait-and-Switch would fall under this, if there was a pattern.
Congrats to the people that managed to get that price. Mistakes happen, forgive and forget.
@Trai_Dep: I think the Consumerist is losing its way when they post stuff like this. This site is about consumers being mislead, but this was an honest mistake, anyone can see that. It's upsetting that this site's headlines are becoming just as misleading as the content they have recently foddered.
@Matt Dalton: How is the headline misleading? Nowhere does it say that Best Buy is trying to screw over customers or is lying or aren't honoring the printed price. They just posted an article about something consumer-oriented, and maybe to let people know they could check out their local BB and see if they are offering the $99 Pre.
It took so long to get over all the "Why is this on Consumerist" whining, and now we have "OMG YOU'RE LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THE ARTICLE" all the time.
I went to Best Buy in Knoxville. The posted price at the display was still $199, but it rang up in the system at $99.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't honor the $99 price because they'd gotten a memo from corporate telling them it was an error, and because they never posted that price anywhere in their store. I came in expecting to pay $199 anyway, so it's no biggie to me.
@Dietrich Duke: Yeah, but it was never meant to be $99 so you got a new phone for less than it was supposed to be. Would you still have bought it if it was $199?
@FDCPAGuy: That's not misleading. It was a simple joke because of a price glitch. It would be very hard to screw that up, but we are talking about a FB commenter...
@Cantras: They did honor the printed price. Then they fixed the printed price, so they no longer have to honor it. The people who were able to take advantage of it before it was fixed were lucky.
This has been a huge fiasco...yes, the pricing was an error, and yes, many stores were (and still are) choosing to honor the pricing. However, it's store by store basis.
Most of the hype about it stems from sites such as engadget and boygeniusreport among others publicising the error, and practically telling people "Go now! Get the Pre!!"
As far as stores honoring the price, the laws vary by state, but to my knowledge (and I admit, I could be wrong), the store has to honor the pricing once, then fix the signage. If the signage doesn't get fixed, then they again have to honor the pricing.
At least that's what we did when I worked at Target.
It's been a long time since I took my high school level business law class, but don't they *have to* honour the printed price?
(Other things I shadily remember from business law: "Or best offer" obligates you to sell even if the best offer sucks, and you can't make a legally binding contract to pay someone to NOT do something.)