It’s frustrating enough when an online retailer makes a typo that leads customers to think an item is on sale. It doesn’t help when the retailer subsequently brushes you off when you bring this error to their attention. And even after the media has pointed out the mistake to the corporate office, it will inexplicably take more time for the price to be corrected. [More]
It turns out that our post yesterday about the pricing error at Best Buy wasn’t quite accurate. When the retailer’s site offered $200 gift cards for $15, lots of people hopped on this particular bandwagon and ordered them. However, a tipster reports that some cards shipped out before best Buy caught the error. Some shipped out…and they aren’t worth $200. Well played, Best Buy. [More]
Late last night, Best Buy posted what seemed like the greatest Black Friday in July deal ever: a $200 gift card for only $15. This was an obvious pricing error, but humans are humans, and people were willing to put up with an Isaac Mizrahi-designed floral gift card if it meant that they would get $185 in free money. Fortunately for Best Buy, they corrected the pricing error after only a few hours. [More]
No matter how many times we remind everyone that stores are generally under no legal obligation to honor a pricing mistake, some folks still seem to think that a retailer must make good — and lose hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars — on something as obvious as a decimal error. [More]
Earlier today, we told you about the Harvard Business School professor who engaged in a lengthy back and forth with the owner of a couple of Boston-area restaurants over the issue of a $4 overcharge. Apparently the Internet didn’t side with the prof, who is now apologizing. [More]
One of the worst things a restaurant can do when it learns it’s overcharged a customer is to shrug it off and say “Oh, we’ll get around to fixing that.” This is especially true when that customer is a Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard. [More]
Reader N. was shopping in the weather station section at Walmart when he noticed something odd. Hanging on the same rack were two different variations on the same weather radio. You could buy the radio for $29.88, or buy the radio with a little carabiner flashlight included for $49.94. Wait, what? [More]
Once again, a retailer is making headlines with shoppers angry they aren’t getting the items they ordered at obviously erroneous prices. This time it’s Walmart.com, which experienced a major glitch yesterday, attaching incorrect prices to numerous items. So this is a good time to remind everyone that this is not a “bait and switch” and that retailers are generally not under any obligation to honor pricing errors. [More]
We occasionally hear about companies mis-labeling a product for significantly less than the retail price then canceling orders once the error is discovered. In spite of what a lot of people believe, this is generally not bait-and-switch and the retailer is not legally obliged to honor the incorrect price. Most companies just cancel orders and weather the slings and arrows of outraged bargain-hunters, but one has decided to just say “enjoy the discount.” [More]
Earlier this week, we showed you a picture of a clearance sign from a Michaels store that didn’t make a whole lot of sense. The yellow and black sign happily declared “CLEARANCE, 70% off,” but the fine print clarified that the clearance didn’t apply to clearance items. We get it if a “70% lowest ticketed price” clearance doesn’t apply to items on sale, but not to items that are on clearance in the first place. As it turns out, this sign seemed wacky because it is.
Tipster N. is a Michaels employee who stepped forward to defend truth, logic, and the craft mega-chain’s pricing policies. It turns out that reader Kim probably should have received 70% off the item, just because that’s how Michaels rolls.
Oops. Staples offered a great deal on self-inking address stamps that seemed too good to be true: 99 cents for a stamp, with free shipping. By the time the transactions went through, the deal actually was too good to be true, making deal-hunters sad and upset with Staples. [More]
You know those pricey $75 socks you’ve been saving up to buy from Kmart? Consumerist reader Jon found them on sale for a huge discount at his local store. [More]
Given the number of items sold at big box stores and large retailers — and how frequently prices are changed during this time of year — the occasional pricing error is inevitable. But one Consumerist reader had a trio of bad barcodes at Best Buy. [More]
If you were doing some shopping on HomeDepot.com yesterday morning, you should check your order summary because you might have been the beneficiary of an oopsy by the home improvement retailer that allowed some customers to place orders they didn’t get charged for. [More]
Adam happened to see the stand mixer of his dreams listed on Amazon for only $36. That was quite a discount from the list price of $500, even with $76.76 shipping, so he jumped on it. As you can guess, this deal wasn’t real and the Amazon Marketplace vendor certainly hadn’t meant to offer a 93% off sale. The seller canceled the transaction, claiming to have no inventory. Now Adam has no mixer, is sad, and blames Amazon. Is this really Amazon’s fault? [More]
Angry TomTom customers have been writing to us all day today to complain that the GPS maker had canceled orders they placed last week on the company’s website.
Several times a year, the Consumerist inbox is flooded with e-mails from people who are livid because they purchased something online at a huge discount only to have the retailer cancel the order, claiming it was a pricing error and the item should never have been listed at that price. Some people are quick to call this “bait-and-switch,” and state very confidently that the retailer is somehow legally obligated to honor the original price. These people are mistaken.
The game Tony Hawk: Shred is marked down to $9.99 from $29.99 at Best Buy, with free shipping. Fantastic deal, and Yero went to check it out. Then he noticed something odd: shipping is free, but this item cannot be shipped. Is something that doesn’t exist inherently free, or does not existing at all mean that it can have no cost?