No, but you had an account with them. One that was set for a predetermined amount of time which obviously you backed out of early. Last time I looked, most cell phone companies check your credit before they will give you an account. That IS an extension of credit. One that gives them the right to access and report to credit reporting agencies.

Amazon on the other hand does not extend you credit nor do they check your credit before allowing you to make a purchase. That's what your credit card company is for. Also, all of you are missing the main point here in that Amazon would have to PROVE that you owe them money (i.e. get a court judgment against you) before they could attempt to collect by referring you to a collection agency. If that weren't the case anyone could turn anyone over to collections...

o god this hurts my eyes, please people take finance 101!!!!! please the people who have absolutely 0 knowledge on finance refrain from speaking out on these issues.

cell phone companies check credit scores to see how likely you are going to pay them -- that is ALL they check for. it is not an extension of any loans to you whatsoever. (someone who isnt paying their creditcards will probably not wanna pay their cell phone bills) -

off wikipedia: credit (as in the term "credit card") is the granting of a loan and the creation of debt. how the - is a termination fee a loan?!?!
utility companies and cell phone companies are not lenders! yikes yikes yikes

you do not need to have a court order to turn something over to collections. in order for a collection agency to seize your assets (ie bank account, garnish wages, autos etc...) THAT requires a court order. please dont talk about anything involving finances and please have your partner (if you have one) handle them for you

Bzzzt, wrong. Creditors don't have to get a court judgment before referring a debt to collections. That is one reason why there is such an extensive set of Federal laws in place covering collections and credit reporting; to serve as a check against the relative ease and informality with which a creditor can ding your credit record.

How about two examples?:

Example 1: The IRS can absolutely ruin your credit report for unpaid taxes... and unpaid taxes are in no way a loan or an extension of credit!

Example 2: If you've had a court rule against you and you refuse to pay the amount the court ordered, you WILL turned over to a credit agency and your credit will suffer (and you'll also be hauled back into court). One again, no one was granted any sort of loan or provided credit in any way.

I think we need to nuke this thread from oribit. It's the only way to be sure.

I'm not aware of a single example of any government agency using a third-party collection agency to recover a financial debt. The IRS certainly doesn't.

By no stretch of the imagination could any halfway reasonable person equate the situation with Amazon with the two examples you've given. Let's try not to lose track of the subject at hand.

I think they will go after the bigger fish first(people who got in over 10 to 50 orders ). the dvd market is very dead, especially on ebay. I can`t even get 3.99 for brand new movies sealed. definately hd-dvd is were the market has turned and fast. they are probally now happy they got to move the junk I got off them at any price. zero resale value.

Damn, really? A few days ago I got $10-11 each for some 2-3 week old releases, used and watched. In my experience TV box sets have a decent resale value, especially complete or large runs.

Sorry I felt like taking the thread in another direction also

Bzzzt, incorrect. The IRS can and does use private collection agencies to spread their loving. See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...155136,00.html for the gory details.

And I thought one of the subjects at hand was your "theory" that collection agencies can only pursue credit debts. At least half a dozen examples of non-credit debts commonly pursued by collection agencies have now been offered (I would add child/spousal support obligations and criminal restitution orders to the mix). Therefore, I think it is safe to say that Amazon could refer any one of its glitch-pirates (Arrr!) to collections if it so desired, subject to all applicable consumer protection laws, of course.

Now, will Amazon take this course? Will they seek to re-charge people's cards? Will xNightfallx be allowed to watch his 54 season sets while he is in debtor's prison? These are the questions that keep us coming back and asking is it January 28th.......February 2nd......er February 12th yet?

How was it a dodge when I explained the difference head-on? As I said, you're free to disagree with the reasoning, but to call it a "dodge" is outright dishonest.

Your definition of "bargain" is pretty different than mine. To me, a bargain is a deal in which a store sells an item at or very slightly above cost. This example was closer to outright theft, and everyone knew it.

It's a dodge because you're trying to rationalize your way out of it. You had a mistake happen in your favor. You thought it was a mistake, yet remained silent. Why didn't you ask the cashier if that was ringing up properly? When it was later confirmed that a mistake was made, did you go running back to pay the difference, or did you wish that you had taken further advantage of it?

That's the exact series of events that happened with this Amazon deal. People had a mistake happen in their favor, they remained silent, and are not interested in paying the proper price now. Justify all you want, but you're just as bad as the people you're condemning.


Now that's funny. So once again, what do you call taking advantage of a price mistake that you knew was happening and then wishing that you took further advantage of it?

It's bad enough when someone gets on their moral high horse, but it's particularly bad when that person is condemning behavior that they engage in.

Example 1: In a weird way, unpaid taxes are a form of credit. The money that you have that is owed to the government in taxes is money that they chose to let you keep until the end of the fiscal year rather than estimating your total yearly income.

Example 2: This is basically the same as the hospital scenario before. If you have been allowed to leave the court without paying, you have been granted a form of credit, de facto. The court is a creditor-- someone to whom a debt is owed.

Seriously, debt collectors collect debts, and no one has yet to convince me that there is any way to owe a debt without being granted a form of credit. This is why the terms are what they are. If you owe money, you are a debtor. The person or entity to whom you own money is called what?

A creditor.

Amazon.com extends no form of credit, because payment is made in full before any product/service is shipped/provided/

If you're going to implicitly claim vast financial knowledge and then cite wikipedia... at least read more than the first line. Just below the line you quoted is this:

"The term credit is used similarly in commercial trade, to refer to the approval for delayed payments for purchased goods. "

This DOES apply to utility and phone companies, because you do not pay for the services at or before the point of use.

"This DOES apply to utility and phone companies, because you do not pay for the services at or before the point of use."

Maybe. Mine bills a month in advance.

It's on wikipedia, so you KNOW it's true.

Plus, in the Lowes example it was an unplanned happening - much differnet then hearing about a glitch online, then bombarding the store with orders in hopes of getting a bunch of free stuff.

Taking the cashier analogy one step further...

If I was buying something and it rang up wrong and I was charged the incorrect price (and it wasn't a mom & pop shop), I probably wouldn't say anything. If I was charged correctly on the register, but the cashier gave me back extra change, I would return it.

If I remember correctly, I made 4 orders from Amazon. I would have seriously considered sending them back/or paying the corrected amount if they had handled things differently. I don't like being threatened with actions that I don't find legitimate. Charging my credit card for an amount other than what I agreed to after the fact without my permission is unacceptable, no matter the circumstances.

Once vendors think that that is permissable, there's no telling much much that would get abused.

maybe a year ago, basically dead now. got a whole whopping 4.99 for a brand new Da vinci code before ebay and paypal fees, barely got anything for tour of dutys and rescue me. the golden age is over, they all are moving to hd-dvds and blu-ray or burn thier dvds now. also example the last 2 seasons of lost I bought on dvd, I will not buy season 3 now as I can watch the entire season 3 on the internet. Amazon probally is only going to go after the big abusers of this deal gone wrong and finally if you did the deal with a debit card I would cancel. other than that enjoy your dvds lol.

You are truely a man of principal. Their email notified you of the glitch, and allowed you to return the items at no cost. Or if you wanted, you could keep them and get charged.

So according to your post, you would have seriously considered returning them - and in the email they gave you that exact option which would cost you nothing. But because they also gave you the option to keep them and be billed - now you have a reason to be upset?

i think what he is saying is more the fact that he doesn't like how they handled it and THAT is the reason he is upset. Its not the price, that isn't the issue for him, its the way they handled it. I'm in the same boat as him. I got one "set" of dvds, it was a set i wanted and i'm willing to pay for if they charge me for it. I didn't like the idea of sending it back and them not refunding me anything. basically i got to pay $4 to look at the boxes for these sets (shipping cost). at that point it didn't make sense for me to ship it back to them, as somewhere in the back of my mind i always would have added that $4 back into the cost of the sets. The B1G1 was a fair price and i'm willing to pay that. I just DID NOT like how they threatended us, and i feel that is where he was coming from as well.

"Recent Amazon Price Error: You'll be charged unless you return!! Part 2"

Enough with the pontificating!! Each side is welcome to their own OPINION. Throwing stones back and forth is futile. We already have two ridiculously long threads because a few people go off on irrelevant tangents. This thread is here to discuss whether or not Amazon will charge people's cards again. If you want to debate morality, start a different thread and have a ball!!

Ah, thats it, Da Vinci code has been out for almost 3 months. In my experience of selling, the blockbuster movies seem to tank quicker. Possibly due to so many people already buying the first week of release. For example though, I sold a copy of Fearless last week - watched once - for $11. Only been out for a month and a half though, so who knows.

Not surprised about resale value, from anything from this Amazon sale. These titles seem to be bogo online and B&M every other week.