I had an item ordered for a good price at DDD and it went to backorder, it was "in stock" when i ordered. I inquired aboutit a month later, and they said their policy was to cancel items on back order after a period of time because you may no longer want that item.

Now, they did let me purchase it at the same price as before, that's where they get a good rep in customer service. Maybe that policy has changed, but, I did expericence it.

And, it is still NOT Bait and Switch, they did not offer him anything else, he chose his order. They did not tell him he could get something else at a higher price, they simply cancelled that item out of his order, there was no switch.

Don't tell me I don't know what bait and switch is, I do. It's advertising something and not delivering on that advertisment and giving the consumer something else in return.

In this case, they did advertise something, they ran out of stock, they cancelled the item, thus, it is NOT bait and switch. He did not get anything he did not order in the place of the cancelled item. Use your brain on this one, it's as simple as 2 + 2 being 4.

But as anyone who has heard the new Radiohead album will tell you, 2+2=5!

It's not bait and switch, technically, but it's still a crummy way to do business.

-- Jough

Well Eric, I hate to tell you this, but you don't know what "bait and switch" is. I suspect you have no real experience in legal matters or consumer affairs, and instead you're plugging in a strict reading of the term "bait and switch" and, since you know what those individual words mean, you are assuming that you know what the term means. You don't.

You might not think its bait and switch, but the courts and the law feels otherwise. I would suggest you do a little research on this topic. Like maybe some of the citations I included in my previous posts? Such as:

"You are attracted to a store by an advertisement for a bargain-priced product. Once at the store, you discover that the product is sold out or otherwise not available....you may find yourself induced to make other purchases....the retailer captures your shopping dollars by luring you to the store with an advertised bargain that was never intended to be made available in reasonable quantities. You have become the latest victim of bait and switch advertising."

If you can point out where the above example was any different than the current discussion RE Overstock.com, I would be curious to hear it.

Nevertheless, we are getting lost in symantics, you might not like to the term "bait and switch". It doesn't matter if we call it "eggs and bacon", its still, as jough said "a crummy way to do business". And I think few of us would like to live in a world where stores and companies routinely advertise products at prices they will not honor, for the sole purpose of inducing you to shop at their business.

I personally dont think that is bait and switch. A retailer shouldnt be responsible for what you CHOOSE to buy. It doesnt matter if the "get a free a styrofoam cup" advertisement got you in their store, they shouldnt be held responsible if you chose to purchase more styrofoam cups. This kind of reminds me of the ridiculous McDonalds lawsuit, you know, the one of the woman who spilled her coffee. Car salesmen are notorious for doing what you just described above, and even real estate agencies, yes its sleazy, but its not illegal. If you ordered The Rock CC from somewhere and it was backordered, but they decide to send you just The Rock, thats illegal, thats bait and switch.

Well, then I would suggest that you speak to your lawmakers and have them revise the consumer protection codes. One of the definitions I provided was from the American Bar Association.



Actually, it is illegal. Once again, just because you dont' think it should, doesn't mean that its not.

As for your example of the styrofoam cup, its obvious that you missed the entire pont of what "bait and switch" is. The McDonalds example as nothing to do with what we are talking about. Its just a loaded example that proves nothing. You might as well have envoked OJ Simpson, because he has as much to do with the topic as McDonalds being sued for hot coffee.

No one is holding a retailer responsible for what a person chooses to purchase, but rather the retailer needs to be honest about what it advertises that its store will provide.

Once again, let me try to give you an example: if owned a department store, and I advertised that the cast of FRIENDS would make a personal appearence on Sunday and I never had any contact with their agents, managers, or whatnot, and had no abilty to produce them, knew that I couldn't produce them, and continued to promote their appearence, don't you think that there is a problem here?

Let me use your defense, "hey, so what nobody from Friends showed up? Where's the harm? So what 10,000 people came to my store expecting to see these stars? If I happened to profit on all this business, where's the harm? I didn't make anyone buy anything."

Its no different than false advertising.

Your dismissal of these types of business practices is saddening. Car salesmen, real estate agents do these types of things all the time? You're right. And that's why car dealerships pay some of the highest premums for insurance, because they are being sued all the time.


Again, much like with Eric earlier, unless you are a member of congress or hold some other lawmaking position, while you personally might not think its "bait and switch" the law thinks differently. You might think you should be able to drive 120mph just like they do in Europe, but I would suggest you try it and see what happens.

Just because the ABA defines something, does not make it fact. That is their opinion.

The ABA does not make law.


Bait - Advertising something.

Switch - Changing of advertised prodct for something mnore expensive in it's place.

Bait and Switch - Selling something more expensive in the place of an item advertised. Advertising something, and no delivering on that advertisement by means of using something else in it's place as a replacement.

None of that was done, you have no case, lawsuit dismissed.

Oh, BTW, I took Business Law. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Let's see. We've got the American Bar Association vs. Erik. I wonder who has a better idea of what the law is?


Well, Golly Wilkers you took Business Law? Then you must know what you are talking about. I'll have to go back to the my co-workers at the LAW FIRM I work at and tell them that we don't know what we are talking about. Erik took Business Law, so he should know about consumer law, class action suits, et al.

There's a saying about a little knowledge being dangerous...

Litza:

You posted about what happened, and the information is there for people to consider or ignore.

Why do you feel the need to rain on everyone who might disagree with you ?? You may be right, they may be right.

You aren't making friends with your confrontational attitude. And people in this community tend to respect that other members are entitled to their opinions. I can sympathize with your frustrations, but would it not be better to just resolve the issue one way or the other and move on to the next deal ??

Well Excuse me for trying to inform people of the law and how to protect themselves. Maybe its better to stay in the dark believing that ignorant opinions are somehow equal in importance to facts.

I respect people opinions, INFORMED OPINIONS that is. This is not a matter of opinion. I do not respect when people do not know what they are talking about and insist on arguing about factual subjects such as a legal matters when their position is based on nothing more than "well, I think..."

Erik is spreading disinformation. Plain and simple. The internet is full of disinformation, uninformed opinions, etc. Its interesting that you called me on the carpet for "not making friends", yet your buddy Erik suggeted that I take my informed information and "stick it in my pipe and smoke it". Gee, I guess a mature discussion means that different things to you depending on what you agree with?

As for your suggestion to "move on to the next deal", you know, I'm sure there were lots of black folks who told Rosa Parks the same thing, "Rosa, just go to the back of the bus, its no big deal, move on".

The bottom line is: "Moving on to the next bargain" allows companies like Overstock.com to continue to practice their sleazy promotions.

I would suggest that if the thread is not to your liking, maybe you are the one whom might want to "move on". Since the topic is "Overstock.com possible bait and switch" if you don't want to read about this problem, and think people should move on, why are you hear posting in the first place? If I think a thread is a waste of time, I don't even bother reading it, or staying there. I wonder what you expected to read when you saw the topic? A discussion of the different bonus materials on the new Die Another Day dvd?

All law is a matter of opinion, you're just a jackass pretending to be a lawyer. Get a life.

When a judge issues a ruling, it''s based on his opinion of the law, his interpratation of the law.

When the ABA issues a definition, it's their opinion of what the law says, that does not make them right, it does not make me wrong, it certainly makes you a jackass.

Do you actually have a point outside of name calling?

I am closing this thread and I'll be sending warnings out to Erik and Litza for their caustic posting.

Litza - You don't have to attack other people's opinions or knowledge bases. It's perfectly fine if some people think that 'Bait and Switch' is one thing and you think it's another.

Erik- Don't call people jackass' you're just making it worse.