Subject:
|
Re: Order Cancellations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:42:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.shopping, Frank Filz writes:
>
> There are two problems here. The first problem is that the ordering
> system is not properly keyed into inventory, allowing people to order
> items which are out of stock. The system should show you if the item is
> out of stock, and then allow you to chose to place a backorder, or come
> back later.
>
> The second problem is the terms of the sale. The store should more
> clearly indicate on the sale if it is limited to quantities on hand (I'm
> not sure what the legal requirements are here, but customer relations
> demand identifying when quantities are limited [and note that
> "clearance" implies that quantities are limited - except in a certain
> Target for 5978s...:-)]).
>
> This raises and interesting question when examined with Libertarian
> principles. Current consumer law demands that if a store advertises an
> item at a price, that they actually have that item available for
> purchase at that price. I think this law is actually unreasonable when
> examined from a Libertarian perspective (note however that the property
> owner renting the space to the store COULD make a condition of the use
> of the space that the store actually have the items in stock - I would
> see this most likely desired by malls who stand to lose reputation if
> the stores in the mall pull tricks with sales which aren't really sales
> because the item isn't in stock). The newspaper which caries the add of
> course could also require the items to be in stock.
>
> There may be legal recourse however if the store doesn't honor the
> advertised price when they have the item in stock (i.e. they advertise
> XYZ for $9.95 this week but when you get to the store it's actually
> $19.95). Of course reasonable errors need to be accomodated. I suspect
> legal recourse even in this case would be limited.
>
> Of course on all of this I'll admit to a bit of laziness in not
> examining the whole picture, so I may be missing something.
>
> follow-ups to: lugnet.off-topic.debate
Thanks for the feedback. I believe I agree with your comments. And I doubt
one could make a legal case at this time, because there are few regulations or
laws (that I know of) regarding e-commerce. But this sequence of events is
occuring more regularly to me as I find deals on-line. And it seems like an
easy out for the retailer. I guess I'm just hoping/wishing for better ways to
handle these occurances in the future (or prevent them). I've hit a string of
bad luck with canceled orders, sales pulled early in bad fashion, and lost
rebate forms (cyberrebate.com) requiring me to spend too much time to document
and resubmit orders/claims/etc. And it just shouldn't be "this hard".
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Order Cancellations
|
| (...) There are two problems here. The first problem is that the ordering system is not properly keyed into inventory, allowing people to order items which are out of stock. The system should show you if the item is out of stock, and then allow you (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jul-00, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
