Long time troller, first time poster, but I had to ask:

Wouldn't you say that's obviously a phishing scheme?

Either you're replying to specific portions only for your amusement, or you're missing my point.

There was no 'unilateral' advantage taken by customers who submit an order, that by Amazon's own TOS, can be rejected for basically any reason. How can any transaction (I gave them money, admittedly less than they wanted, and they gave me dvd sets) that doesn't involve one party sticking a gun to the head of the other be unilateral?

Unfair in that they demanded the items be returned unopened despite a good number (if not a majority) having already been delivered to customers which opened them. Stupid customers, using goods in the manner for which they are intended. I can recall only one person in the previous threads indicating they were told they could return opened items, and I think the rep said something about making an exception in that case.

It wasn't entirely forseeable given the stated policies for action on pricing errors in Amazon's TOS and that they have consistantly cancelled previous price mistakes (let's not get into whether this was a price mistake or misapplication of a promotion) or when errors were shipped, they have never previously post-billed the remaining amount they felt they were owed.

It doesn't tie their hands, but it's clearly stated in their TOS contract, to which both parties agreed, that disputes are to be settled by arbitration, not by one party deciding what shall be done. If dozens of customers replying to the original email stating, in effect, 'Sorry you screwed up and didn't have a system in place to prevent such mistakes, keep from shipping such mistakes and/ or notify the customer in a timely manner so they could abide by those conditions, but I don't feel I owe you any more and I don't authorize you charge any more than I agreed to upon checkout...' isn't an indication they are disputing Amazon's decision, I'm not sure what more they need to read from customers to understand the terms of the sale are in dispute and should be arbitrated. Perhaps some sort of notarized statement on legal letterhead?

I may not have made it clear before, but I understand 100% why Amazon has done what they have, but I in no way agree or consent to it. They see it as a group of customers screwed them out of dvds (at a possibly large loss). But the customer sees it as, hell they've cancelled these things before, can't hurt to order. Oh yeah, it went through. Now they've arrived and I'll open and watch my dvds. Oh, now I have to pay more, which I didn't agree too, or send them back... wait can't do that since they sent the email 2 days after I opened them, or better yet I don't want to send them back and I don't feel I need to pay them any more than agreed upon. If this isn't a great case for some objective third party to decide, what would be?

But they will decide if Amazon is owed the money. Are you suggesting the CC company could look into it and decide that in fact Amazon was owed that money (per whatever they feel the contract to purchase was) yet not allow Amazon to charge that card, thus forcing them to collect in another manner? That's not a rhetorical question either, I'm really wondering if a company would take a ballsy stand like that.

I think it's absolutely reasonable for a credit card company to admit that Amazon is owed money, yet reject any of these charges. It should be as simple as, "Did the customer authorize his or her card to be charged for these purchases? No? Then I'm afraid we can't allow them."
All of my cards have clear policies regarding unauthorized charges, and I'm confident I could successfully fight these charges with little effort. However, the more I read and think about it, the more I know I'd feel like a bastard arguing technicalities in this situation. The credit card company will stand behind you, but I wouldn't expect any sympathy--they'd merely be following procedures.

I hope that you meant lurker because we already have more than enough trolls. Welcome to the forum.

When it happens, what happens is that the card issuer will issue the chargeback, but the merchant will pursue the card holder via other means - lawsuit, collection agency, etc.

Your credit card bank is not a court of law, nor an arbitrator. They do not have the power or authority to decide whether Amazon is owed money or not in a general sense. They only decide whether or not Amazon will get its money from your credit line. If you win the chargeback, Amazon could still attempt to enforce its claims via arbitration and/or small claims (the applicable AAA rules do permit either side to opt for small claims court in consumer cases where the amount at issue is relatively small). The chances of this happening are slim to none, IMHO.

Well said.

the last post you had (before the quoted one above) towards what i posted deserves no response and IMHO is quite shameful - hence i find no desire to rebut that post of yours (*grammatical correction*)

- i got to dvdtalk from another forum around that time that had NOTHING to do with that issue. i've looked at the dvd discounts and have bought several dvd boxsets. I am very fond of this issue and in no way do i have to share my opinion on every topic there is at dvdtalk.
since your posts have become quite factless and just plain defensive i find no desire to address them henceforth. hopefully you decided to make better conversation that randomly calling someone a hypocrite (if you actually even know what that is) or accusing someone of being the center of the universe (i'm not trying to be the sun and no way do i bring light into your world) (*grammatical correction*)

* will start using mozilla cause it auto corrects spelling errors

FYI - the sun is not the center of the universe.

I agree with most of your points here, except for one regarding knowledge. Amazon sent out many orders (including my two) well after they fixed the glitch and thus were aware of it. I think that speaks to their awareness of the glitch before completing the processing and packing of orders and actually shipping them out. I imagine it would also be easy to put a hold or stop to any orders that were for $0.00 or just the cost of shipping. This cancellation would be in line with their published policy statement, and certainly within their rights to do.

If Amazon failed to cancel these orders after becoming aware of the glitch, and instead proceeded to pack and ship them (along with a statement saying "This completes your order"--admittedly not a legal document, but an indication that they knowingly processed the order, shipped it, and intended this to be a completion of the transaction), then I think the knowledge factor works against them. They had the opportunity to cancel orders after having knowledge of the glitch and failed to do so.

Personally, I'm sitting on a 3-way fence. I thought the price was good for my 2 orders (I only bought 4 sets that I really wanted), so I might just pay the charges. OTOH, Amazon's mishandling of this, including the many inconsistent responses I've received, makes me want to just return the DVDs. OTOOH, Amazon's attitude of "we can just charge you after the fact any time we want" pushes me toward disputing the charges.

I think the controversy has been interesting. I don't feel wronged, and I'm honestly undecided about my 3 options.

P.S. romuo, just an educational tidbit: Note that the word "hypocrite" does indeed have an "e" at the end. Your arguments regarding hypocrisy may carry a bit more weight if it appears that you actually know how to spell the word. [And no, I'm not even going to touch on "rebuttle" or your use of it as a verb! ]

We got off on a tangent on this. In my original post I was pointing out that if Amazon wanted a favorable resolution for the company, they had a better chance to get it through arbitration. Charging customers cards when they've created no invoice detailing those charges is a sure way to initiate a chargeback, for which they would most likely lose. In the second post, I was pointing out that it is absurd to think that, when/if the chargeback is initiated, there wouldn't be some inquiry as to whether or not the charges were valid. If the CC company finds that the customer is liable for the price that Amazon wants (I'm not talking morally here, only contractually), then how could their stance be Amazon is owed the money, but they can't collect it from the CC, since that CC was used to make the purchase? On the other hand, even if Amazon loses the dispute, you're correct, the company could try to recoup through collections or arbitration.

i know , i just dont know what the center of the universe is (or if there is one) so i put the middle of the solar system (i know youre just messing around so its all good)

drmoze - also, please dont go after my spellings as i sometimes type at 2/3am and i'm very tired. i also did use the word rebuttal incorrectly but i'm sure most people understood what i was trying to say. i try to do my best but sometimes i get tired or just type incorrectly. but your grammatical are valid, and so is my argument spelled correctly or not

It is just left of the Alpha Nebula Centurion cluster.

Wow. you found one of MY posts shameful? I find that hard to believe. Again you pull out the third grade argument of "I know you are but what am i". I call your posts out on being factless, confrontational and pointless, then you say mine are too in response. Quite a good rebuttal. I'm actually not surprised that that is all you were able to come up with.
As far as you being a new member, it is a fact that you joined on decmeber 30. As someone else pointed out, it is/was a fact that all your posts are in the threads regarding this amazon pricing error. Thats what I said. Are you disagreeing with these facts?
In no way did I accuse you of being the center of the universe. What I said was you believe you are the center of the universe, since you seem to assume everything disparaging that is said is about you. We will not go into whether it should be or not.
Now, i guess i have to say it again. I DID NOT CALL YOU A HYPOCRITE!! That statement is neither random, nor non factual. If you have been following these threads at all instead of popping in here and there to add your nonsensical whimsy you would know that. If you need me to spell it out more for the slow kids, I will do so.
As far as getting a spell checker, if it bothers you so much, it might be a good idea.

Actually, that would be me that it bothers so much.

Posted in a similar thread at:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=...d&cid=18025852

"This is not as black and white as some would think"
by Dagmar d'Surreal (5939) on Thursday February 15, @12:21PM (#18025852)

So far, this thread has mainly been composed of two groups of opinions. The first opinion, which is definitely the minority so far, is claiming that these customers are morally obligated to pay Amazon the money that Amazon was supposed to have charged them in the first place.

The second group seems to simply be saying "Screw 'em. The law says it's a done deal and no takesies-backsies."

Both of these responses are actually equally valid, taken away from their context, and both seem to be rooted in a sense of what is "fair". Which of the two is the usefully "correct" answer given the context has yet to be addressed, so I'll address it.

People should be treated as you'd like them to treat you. It's as simple as that. Good people make moral decisions. They do what's "right". Anyone arguing this? Of course not. The problem is that this is not the context in which this transaction took place. Amazon is not a person. Amazon is a corporation. This does not automatically mean one should be looking to screw them over, so follow along carefully.

Corporations, unlike people, do not make moral decisions. They make decisions based on profit margins and a curious thing called "stockholder interest", which, while it does involve people, has little to nothing to do with morality. It's simply a fact that even if someone in the corporation dared to make a decision where the moral response differs from the profitable solution by any significant degree, the organization would consider the un-profitable moral response to be incorrect (and probably fire that person if it was a large enough difference). Corporations are amoral, which is different from "immoral" so if you're having trouble understanding this, use the intertubes to look up the meanings of the words.

Taking the context of the situation into account, the customers, from a purely moral standpoint shouldn't have made the deal they did. However, you can pretty much bank on the fact that the corporation would not be making this same distinction. Corporations, while enjoying the benefits of being declared a "business entity" can be counted on to go with the letter of the law and no further in a situation involving assets of almost any kind, including money, and for this reason these customers should treat Amazon the same way Amazon would treat them. By the letter of the law, these customers owe Amazon no more money than what they were charged, Amazon would be breaking the law by charging their credit cards after the fact, and the customers should fight them every step of the way because that's what Amazon would do if the roles were reversed, simply because it would be profitable for Amazon to do so, and seldom does the issue of the morality of a business decision ever become challenged. When a non-entity which has no moral incentive is granted rights by law to be an "entity" with the same rights as a person--by acting in an amoral fashion they have to accept that their customers will behave with the exact same level of self-interest if the corporation being given these rights is to be anything approaching fair. Otherwise, ethically speaking, a corporation is no more than a paper facade for large groups of people to make decisions and interact with other people without being hindered by moral judgements. Fail to understand this, and the corporations will eventually gobble up everything.

I couldn't agree more.

You guys aren't alone, Cabela sold Northern Lite WindShear Lined Jackets for only $1 and wants them back from people on Slickdeals and FW.

Is Amazon actually refunding the people they say they'll refund in their emails or are they just screwing with everyone?

Krayzie, I haven't been refunded for my set yet, but it usually takes a few days. It'll probably be Monday before I know.



At Peep for posting then posting again to agree with himself.

Maybe my first post was confusing, but all that text was quoted from somebody from a different forum. The second post was stating my agreement.

That being said, I usually agree with stuff I've just said. At least 80% of the time.

The debates there are about the same as here. Not definative for either side on who is owed what. Its just a different group of people discussing/debating it(i'm assuming, of course, those here are not posting there).

The only thing that has been definative is that reguardless on wether or not Amazon is due this money, the common consesus is that they had no right to take it upon themselves to charge the cards. If they wanted restitution, they needed to go about it a different way.

I couldn't agree more; well maybe 81%.

There are a lot of GREAT insightful posts at slashdot. I'm going to be wasting a lot of time reading through them tonight.

Regarding Peep's reposting from slashdot, I think that it pretty much nails the "pro-glitch" (for lack of a better term) moral perspective and it basically boils down to "corporations are bad/selfish/amoral so it is ok for me to treat them in a like manner." This is straight-up moral relativism that abandons a personal code of morals in favor of a flexible, case by case (and perhaps opportunistic) version of morality.

I subscribe to the opposite moral view, which is pretty well expressed in this post from user cryfreedomlove at slashdot:

Have you ever looked at your check in a restaurant and noticed that the waiter forgot to charge you for something your ordered and ate? What do you do? I tell the waiter so they can add it to the check. Then I pay for what I ate. All of it. It's the right thing to do and that's the kind of society I want my kids to inherit.

In your world, there is no honor system. You'd sneer and leave the resaurant without paying what you owe. You'd pat yourself on the back while the restaurant owner struggles to pay his workers and keep the doors open.

In my example, there is a moral choice on the table. I made it one way and you made it the other way. Who is the better man?

I don't endorse the slightly "superior" tone taken in the above post but I think it essentially describes the moral perspective of a lot of "anti-glitch" posters here.

So for your preference in adhering to absolute morality, what about the following situation? You eat at a restaurant, making note of the prices on the menu for the items you order, eat and get the check. You then see that the prices of the items on the check are now more than they were on the menu. You confront the waiter who says, "Yeah we made a mistake when we printed those menus, the items all cost more than that." Are you saying that you would, unfailingly, pay whatever was listed on the bill regardless of what you were told beforehand just because you must adhere to an unflinching moral code of paying exactly what the bill says? If not (or if you claim raising the price wasn't 'fair' because the workers could still benefit from the lower listed price) that's moral relativism.

Yes, it has nearly nothing to do with the Amazon discussion, but....