McDonalds coffee reference again? That was not an abuse of the law at all. Do you even know the facts of that case? Didn't think so.
McDonalds coffee reference again? That was not an abuse of the law at all. Do you even know the facts of that case? Didn't think so.Originally posted by: firestorm225
I agree 100% with what you said. This is a huge display of the stupidity that has taken over the country when it comes to law. To me, this abuse of the law is no better than suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on yourself.
Just pointing out that the thread titles are equally misleading. There is no need for that. It's called common sense and common courtesy.Originally posted by: Pothead
Geez, lazy bums.
Originally posted by: TheFishingGeek
Anyone know if Oregon does law-matching?
Originally posted by: Intake77
A child is trying to stick up for big businesses that are practicing deceptive advertising. Get off your high horse.
The CT DCP has a law in place that protects the CONSUMER by forcing companies to *gasp* advertise the actual price they are charging for an item! Is that so hard to comprehend? Hey, if they really wanted to, why dont they just advertise certain items are !!!FREE!!! because they pay for themselves in 3 uses?
I'm done posting in this thread. Have a nice day!
Text
"unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided" DOES NOT MEAN that the item has to be sold at the final price. It means that you must be told how much the rebate is worth. THAT'S why people are getting confused here man. Like I said, nothing more, nothing less. This entire law is saying nothing more than "If you are going to advertise a price, you must list all expenses."
If a store advertises an item as "$99" with "$40" in rebates" are you to assume that the item is $139, then $99 after rebates, or $99 and then $59 after rebates? With this law in place, retailers are required to give you this information clean and clear, or pay the price. So yes, if they fudge up, this does work. But no, this is a nothing more than a case of YMMV.
With this law in place, retailers are required to give you this information clean and clear, or pay the price. So yes, if they fudge up, this does work.
Originally posted by: ozone13Damn Democrats always complaining! No wonder donkeys represent Democrats in satire!
Originally posted by: 1YellowPeril
My feeble brain is confused. Intake77's originating post said that Best Buy had a sign that said $9.99 after $20 rebate. So is this against the CT law or not?
Originally posted by: chasm22
Ness1469;
You're up for idiot of the year.
Text"unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided" DOES NOT MEAN that the item has to be sold at the final price. It means that you must be told how much the rebate is worth. THAT'S why people are getting confused here man. Like I said, nothing more, nothing less. This entire law is saying nothing more than "If you are going to advertise a price, you must list all expenses."
If a store advertises an item as "$99" with "$40" in rebates" are you to assume that the item is $139, then $99 after rebates, or $99 and then $59 after rebates? With this law in place, retailers are required to give you this information clean and clear, or pay the price. So yes, if they fudge up, this does work. But no, this is a nothing more than a case of YMMV.
After all you're whining, after all you're misinterpretations of the law, and after all the rude insults you have put in writing EXACTLY what others have been trying to tell you and you've been denying. In your own words;With this law in place, retailers are required to give you this information clean and clear, or pay the price. So yes, if they fudge up, this does work.
Or maybe you now want to argue that when you say "pay the price" it just means they have to "list all expenses"? LOL. Obviously, with you're contorted, confused concept of reality you'll somehow make just such an argument. But the truth lies in your responses. When a retailer ILLEGALLY advertises, you say; "if they fudge up". If consumers LEGALLY make the retailer abide by the LAW, you say they; "try to dick stores out of money." Can you say b-i-a-s-e-d?
Originally posted by: Intake77
I never called you names, or tried to make you look like a bad guy, that was your job to me from the moment your posts were directed in my general direction. I'm trying to explain that the word 'provided' doesn't take on the meaning of what you normally say. Anyways, either way you look at it ness, I'm never going to be right in your eyes.
If you want me to start calling you names, I will... but I usually tend to talk things out first.
Originally posted by: ness1469
I edited my previous post to further pound your statement into the ground.
BTW, that's a pretty lame "comeback", so I'll accept that as a big fat win for me.
Originally posted by: ness1469
this coming from someone with the screen name "Pullmyfinger".
Secondly, I simply clairified the law for people who just didn't get what it was saying, and was then taunted with a fit of sarcasm that implied that I was calling Intake a liar for trying to help.
Third, my knowledge of this law in particular rest in my ability to read, and my knowledge of law in general rests in the fact that when you have a law, you cannot assume what it means, rather, you must take it for it's exact context. That's more than enough to validate my points.
And furthermore, I refuse to take criticism from anyone on my "knowledge of the law" that doesn't even take the time to say why their opinion on the situation is any more valid than mine. So please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about until you know the truth, and the whole story.
so if the ad says $40 (after $20 MIR) it is legal, but if it says $40 (after rebates) without stating the amount of the MIR it is illegal?Originally posted by: TechJunky
In this case, it might not be free but it's pretty clear that the whole point is if it's clearly advertised - e.g.
Get this printer for $40! ($60 - $20 mail-in rebate), evening if stating the net price, it's kosher in Connecticut.
~TJ
Originally posted by: PullMyFinger
I've never said that I know more about the law than you or anybody else on this site but I damned well know that when you start calling people liars and pounding your chest saying "yippee, look at me, I'm right and everybody else is wrong" you'd better have some facts to back it up. You just stated that your entire knowledge of this topic is based on reading what someone has posted on the internet.
Based solely on the information provided in this thread, section e) of Intake77's first post clearly states that a customer is entitled to be payed the rebate amount at time of purchase if the net (final after rebate) price is advertised, and for the following reasons. The first paragraph of section e) can be interpreted two ways: "Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the
net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase" could mean that A) the retailer must tell the buyer how much the rebate is for, or B) it could mean that the retailer must pay the buyer the retail amount.
However, the next sentence of section e) indicates that the second interpretation is correct. "A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item". For example: first interpretation "Item X is $20 and includes a MIR" (of unspecified amount), second interpretation "Item X is $10 after a $10 MIR". The first interpretation would require that the amount of the rebate never be disclosed, which is unrealistic.
The next sentence does not indicate that the second interpretation is correct. It merely states that the amount (value of rebate not payment of rebate) needs not be provided when the price after rebate is not advertised.
SO legal: (example item with purchase price of $50, MIR of $40)
Price $10 ($50 - $40 Manfacturer Rebate = $10 final cost) meets First condition
Price $50 (Manufacturer Rebate available) meets Second Condition
NOT legal:
Price $10 (After Manufacturer rebate) fails first condition
But good luck to those that try. If I were the retailer I would hold the customer to the terms and conditions of the rebate. Which would mean after ringing up the purchase the customer would have to remove the UPC, and present it to me to get the value of the rebate. Then I would refund the rebate amount, draw a line through the item on the receipt with a sharpie, write rebate paid in store and intial it. But hey, that's just me.
Originally posted by: PullMyFinger
Originally posted by: ness1469
this coming from someone with the screen name "Pullmyfinger".
Secondly, I simply clairified the law for people who just didn't get what it was saying, and was then taunted with a fit of sarcasm that implied that I was calling Intake a liar for trying to help.
Third, my knowledge of this law in particular rest in my ability to read, and my knowledge of law in general rests in the fact that when you have a law, you cannot assume what it means, rather, you must take it for it's exact context. That's more than enough to validate my points.
And furthermore, I refuse to take criticism from anyone on my "knowledge of the law" that doesn't even take the time to say why their opinion on the situation is any more valid than mine. So please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about until you know the truth, and the whole story.
You called me immature. "Pull My Finger" isn't exactly something you would do in a mature situation. Therefore, I feel that someone this screenname is not to be taken seriously. You brought the maturity factor in here, and you are questioning how this relates to the topic?Yep, my screen name is funny, wow, you got me there, boy do I feel embarrassed.Your first comment is related to the topic how......?
Now, regarding your second statement, "simply clarified" is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst. Using your own words, "cheap-ass concept" and "if you can be enough of a weasel to pull this off" were part of your first post in this thread. You immediately followed up with "I took the liberty of translating all of this in to non-idiot english" in the very next post in the thread. Very grown up.
That's because it is, in my eyes, a cheap-ass and weasel-like concept to knowingly mistranslate laws for your benefit, and then follow up by "double-dipping" the rebate. Ultimately, you are wrongfully taking money away from a corportation. Regardless of what they do or don't do, It's quite hypocritical to bust for someone for being deceitful, then to deceive someone into thinking you haven't gotten the value of the rebate. On top of that, if you trick someone into thinking they are being deceitful, well, there is no way to justify that.
I've never said that I know more about the law than you or anybody else on this site but I damned well know that when you start calling people liars and pounding your chest saying "yippee, look at me, I'm right and everybody else is wrong" you'd better have some facts to back it up. You just stated that your entire knowledge of this topic is based on reading what someone has posted on the internet.
First off, "what's posted on the internet" is the law itself. That's all you need to tell what the law means. It's not that hard. Again, you need nothing more than to understand the words contained in the law.
Second, I didn't call him a liar until he said sarcasticly that he was one. He got the spindle of CD-Rs and made ten bucks in the process. That's a fact. There is no denying that, and I'm certainly not trying to. I will and have been arguing the fact that whether or not he chooses to believe it, he was wrong, and that this is not something that works for every rebate out there. It has to happen when the store lists items at a certain price, in a certain way, whether they intended to or not. So, again, I say this is nothing more than a case of "Your Mileage May Vary", giving reference to the idea that this is not a "set in stone" deal, or that any person, at any given time, could walk into any given store and get this to work. You guys seem to be wanting make this into a mass rampage of retail store ads, something else totally different than what really happened here, and it's not anything like that.
Based solely on the information provided in this thread, section e) of Intake77's first post clearly states that a customer is entitled to be payed the rebate amount at time of purchase if the net (final after rebate) price is advertised, and for the following reasons. The first paragraph of section e) can be interpreted two ways: "Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the
net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase" could mean that A) the retailer must tell the buyer how much the rebate is for, or B) it could mean that the retailer must pay the buyer the retail amount.
No. Intake's first post states that he was able to make this happen. Not that a customer is entitled to anything but a breakdown of how the net cost is reached. Nor should they be entitled to anything but that. You are given the choice to purchase items or not, and if you don't like the price, there is no reason why the retail store (the middle man) should be forced to pay the amount that a manufactuer is offering in rebates. Simply saying "because they use it in their ads" is not a valid point either, because the manufacturer is the one who ultimately benefits from this, because their product in the one being sold.
Again, the law cannot mean that if you read exactly what it is saying. You need to take laws for their literal content, not assumption.
However, the next sentence of section e) indicates that the second interpretation is correct. "A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item". For example: first interpretation "Item X is $20 and includes a MIR" (of unspecified amount), second interpretation "Item X is $10 after a $10 MIR". The first interpretation would require that the amount of the rebate never be disclosed, which is unrealistic.
Again, you have to take the law for it's literal and not assumed meaning. You seem to have assumed that the opposite is held true, to. The opposite is covered part previous to this, regarding if they use the net price in the advertisement, they have to show the original price, the rebate amounts, etc.
This section means nothing more than if the retailer does not use the net price in any was as an advertisement, it can't be responsible for paying the rebate. It mentions nothing about the opposite, and therefore the opposite is not the law.
Lastly, refuse it or not, I'm criticizing you. Not just for your immature responses and name calling but for the fact that you type before you think: "Why is my opinion on the situation more valid than yours?" Lets see, I actually live in the state where the law takes affect (you live in BLOW-HIO), I actually get to read the specific deceptive ads which this law aims to eliminate, I actually plan on calling the 1-800 number to get more information on the law and how it applies to me (an idea which you openly scoffed), and I have a long time friend (and skydiving partner) who just happens to be a state prosecutor from Danielson, CT; you wanna hear some f'ed up courtroom stories.... So don't tell ME about your knowledge of how a law must be taken for it's exact content, I have first hand knowledge of how wrong that statement is. (and if you don't believe me, PM me and I'll give you his name and email address, he'd be glad to enlighten you).
Who your friends are means nothing. I have a friend that played pro baseball. Does that mean that I know everything there is about baseball? Blow-Hio? That's a pretty good one. I'll write it down and use it sometime. But for now, we'll talk about things relevent to the topic, because you said that's important. Good job in demonstrating that you are more mature than me with the Blow-Hio statement and that's another reason why I find your criticism to be a flat out joke. As for living in CT, I doubt there is any difference in the CT law no matter what state you read it in. I get supposidly "deceptive" ads too. All of the ads from best buy, when they advertise a price, will say how you reach that price. This is in compliance with the laws and standards for non-deceptive advertising, and therefore is not deceptive, as said by YOUR state.
Originally posted by: PullMyFinger
Ok ness, because you are obviously too inept to stay on topic and too lazy to actually look up the facts for yourself, I'll take the liberty of quoting the actual words from the CT DCP website regarding how this law is to be interpreted (btw, Intake77 did this for you several posts prior to this yet you still don't get it):
"Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer?s rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don?t wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register."
There, is that "non-idiot" enough for even you to understand? Hmmm, lets see now, that would mean that all of your misplaced logic is WRONG, all of your assumptions are WRONG, and anything you say to the contrary only manages to stuff more of your foot in your mouth.
SilentRunning,
I agree with your thought that stores will start to hold the customer to the terms and conditions of the rebate. I don't really see a problem with that, in fact it would be great not to have to wait for the rebate. But, if they choose no to, then the consumer is entitled to "double dip" on the rebate, according to the current law.