| |
On Wed, 22 May 2002, David Eaton wrote:
> Anyway, the real loser in this is Target, not Wal*Mart. And they're living
> with their mistake instead of trying to take back what they said-- unlike
> the 75% off Ames sale oh-so-long-ago.
Huh? Target didn't lose anything---they were clearly willing to sell the
sets as advertised.
However, the original post clearly indicates *fraud*, in that:
Two Slave Is were purchased at Target, at a cost of $50 (MSRP $100 for
both).
Those Slave Is were "returned" for store credit at Wal-Mart.
The poster used the credit to buy a Republic Gunship (MSRP $90).
The obvious implication (and the only reason for messing around with the
Slave Is) is that Wal-Mart gave $100 in store credit for merchandise that
was purchased for $50 at another store.
Most return policies that I've seen that allow returns without receipts do
so expressly with the condition that the maximum refund is the minimum
price for which the item has been available in the locality within the
preceding 90 days. Wal-Mart paid out because the people at Wal-Mart were
tricked into thinking that the Slave Is came from their store (and thus
that the applicable price was MSRP, and that they had a duty under store
policy to accept the return).
Wal-Mart was defrauded of the difference between their price from TLC and
MSRP, as well as restocking costs.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) ? Sure they did-- they didn't mean to mark it down by such a percentage, hence they're losing money. IE for each Slave I they sell at $24.99 they loose about $25.00. Not *REALLY* since (more likely) more are being sold than otherwise would, (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
