Showing Latest Comments
Should Wedding-Related Businesses Be Allowed To Refuse Service To Same-Sex Couples?
As a general rule, businesses can refuse to deal with whoever they want for any reason they want, with a few exceptions. One of the exceptions is race. Sexual orientation is not one of the exceptions. (Your state's or municipality's laws may vary.)
Now, it's usually bad business to turn down customers. And, businesses that regularly do that will eventually be forced to close down because they can't compete with those that don't turn down customers. But, it's not illegal.
How An Attempt To Return TV To Best Buy Left Man With No TV And No Refund
Doesn't matter if the gifter was "free to" give it back to Eli. Best Buy could have given it to anybody and that person would be "free to" give it back to Eli. Best Buy had no right to do anything with Eli's money other than give it to Eli.
How An Attempt To Return TV To Best Buy Left Man With No TV And No Refund
In my view, Best Buy's actions here were illegal. Eli walked in with a television that he owned and was forced (under penalty of arrest) to leave it there, walking out with nothing. Sounds like a great small-claims case.
It's not relevant that the original gifter got the money back -- he had as much right to that money as if Best Buy had just given it to the homeless guy living in a box in Best Buy's parking lot, and then told Eli "Oh, we gave your money to the homeless guy. You'll have to try to get it back from him." Sorry. If BB wants to give $240 to somebody, that's their business and shouldn't impact Eli.
This should just be a case of "Best Buy screws up, ends up paying $480 for a television worth $240."
How An Attempt To Return TV To Best Buy Left Man With No TV And No Refund
Doesn't matter. The gift recipient was the lawful owner of the television, not the person to whom they refunded the money. Best Buy had two options: (1) "Sorry, we won't give you store credit for the TV," and let him keep the TV, or (2) "We will give you store credit for the TV" and give him store credit. The fact that they decided to give money back to the person who originally purchased the television is irrelevant -- once that person gave the TV to the recipient, he had no further right to any refund.
Here's what Best Buy should have done; "Shucks, we screwed up and gave a $240 credit to somebody else. Well, here's your $240 credit. We'll have to figure out how to get the $240 back from that other guy, but that doesn't concern you."
Watch Now The Live Senate Hearing On Whether Forced Arbitration Is Fair
I meant "just to avoid the cost of LITIGATION."
Watch Now The Live Senate Hearing On Whether Forced Arbitration Is Fair
Because litigation is often far more expensive for defending companies than it is for plaintiffs -- the lawyers are more expensive and discovery places a far greater burden on the party with all the information, who is typically the defendant. That difference in cost was long used to push companies into settling non-meritorious claims, just to avoid the cost of arbitration.
There are some cases where arbitration really is abusive -- car sellers, for example, often require arbitration in an arbitration forum set up specifically for them. But, those problems disappear with AAA or JAMS arbitration.
The funny thing here is that many companies go out of their way to make the process fair. AT&T's terms, for example require them to pay your costs of filing the arbitration and allow you to go after them in Small Claims Court.
Mother Somehow Runs Up $1500 Verizon Bill
p=mv They put the button there ON PURPOSE, knowing that a mis-press will give them a little bit of cash.
Bank Of America CEO Defends $5 Fee Hike: We Have "Right To Make A Profit"
And there, in 5 words, is the problem with Wall Street. You have a right to PURSUE profit, but you don't have a right to MAKE it. That's the reward you get for working hard to give customers what they want.
It's the "I have a right to be a profitable company, and the government should make sure I get it, even if I screw up" attitude that makes us all hate banks.
Personally, I think the Congress should go in, tell BofA "You took our money. Now you play by our rules. Drop the fee or your life will get very difficult." There needs to be some penalty to nearly driving your company of a cliff -- if the government intervenes with the one naturally imposed by the free market, then I'm happy for the government to impose one of its own (and the more byzantine the better.)
Ideas For Saving USPS From Bankruptcy
How about.... Just charging more, especially for junk mail?
Comments from cf27
Is $200 An Appropriate Penalty For Stealing A $.79 Donut?
And.... This is why you don't eat the food until after you pay for it. I know people sometimes walk around grocery stores eating/drinking something they just picked up off the shelves. But, when they do that, they run the risk that they won't remember to pay for it and they will have shoplifted.
Heck, eating food you don't own is shoplifting all by itself -- the store would have been right to call the cops on him even before he got to the checkout.
It's a grocery store, not a restaurant. Pay first, then eat.