| |
I have to side with Larry (and Mike, too I guess). I am sure companies
use these limits (one per person/per household) to maximize the
effectiveness of their special deal. They are within their rights to make
up such rules, and you are within your rights to get as much product of
theirs as you want, as long as you abide by their rules. You may be able to
buy five or ten of their DVDs (with a little networking) that they only earn
$1 on, but they are still limiting you from buying their entire inventory at
such a low profit. You get your DVDs, they make a couple dollars everyone
is happy. They get other customers, with much different spending habits,
they make a lot of dollars, and they are a lot happier, because their
special deal did what it was supposed to do. If they didn't have the limit,
they would have sold them all to you, and had none left to sell to someone
who is willing to pay more. Anyway, I don't see a problem with a company
imposing limits on special deals (however they word it) nor with Mike's
hobby of finding and utilizing the specials deals.
--
Have fun!
John
6035 on sale for $20 (LIMIT 1)
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <382AC86D.73524223@voyager.net>...
> The fact that a rule is stupid or even that it costs the company sales
> when it is adhered to is irrelevant. If the company promulgates a rule
> and makes it a part of the implied contract between you and they, you
> are bound to abide by it or be in breach of contract.
>
> Now, this particular breach may be small beer, but it's a breach
> nonetheless. You can certainly choose to be in breech as long as you are
> prepared to accept the consequences. One of those being that I consider
> it wrong, morally, to be in deliberate breach. Whether that matters to
> you matters not to me.
>
> Specifically...
>
> Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> > Certainly you're not saying that if I get in on a deal that's one
> > per household, then privately contract with another person at
> > another address to get in on the same deal, paying with their money
> > and having it shipped to their address, then at some time after that
> > pay them for the item which they then hand to me, is cheating?
>
> Not at all. That household chose to buy it. Unless the terms are "no
> resale ever" they can then sell to you at whatever price they choose
> including what they paid, more, or less, and not be in breach.
>
> > If so, you would be saying this?
> >
> > [Deal is one per household]
> >
> > I buy one. Rachael can't. (That's ok)
>
> Correct, agreed.
>
> > I buy one. Rachael does as well, ships to work. (Not ok. Cheating)
>
> Correct, agreed.
>
> > Rachael's Dad buys one. Sells to me when he comes to town next.
> > (Not ok - also cheating?)
>
> Incorrect. Not cheating unless the offer terms say no resale.
>
> > Surely not, Larry, champion of the rights of individuals to contract
> > with one another to do business?
> >
> > I would have thought you would say it's cool for me to contract with
> > everyone in my apartment building to buy such and such deal.
>
> I do say so. Unless the terms say no resale.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
>
> NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
