Although that is a decent summary of law, there are two flaws with using that in this argument. For one, it's only a summary, and fails to mention the finer points of the law, and the second and most important fact, it's only a summary, not the law itself. That's why I completely disregarded that whole thing.
And the statement on double-dipping is false too, that's a whole seperate debate in itself. It's fraud. Fraud is more or less lying. You have received your rebate, and almost all rebate forms say one rebate per person, per household. You may argue that people who buy two of the item should get two rebates, and ideed they should. But you shouldn't get two rebates for this. But again, that's an entirely seperate subject with is more a question of morals rather than law.
Ness, you just don't get it. The summary is a simplification of what the law states, if there is any ambiguity in the how certain parts of the law can be interpreted, the summary is there to clarify to overall intent of the law. The summary was never intended to mention the finer points of the law, get a clue. This is the same reason why there is generally an executive summary and/or conclusion included with most technical documents, the actual data could be interpreted in ways other than those intended by the author, depending on who is reading it.
Now regarding calling double dipping fraud, that is wrong also. A person who manages to get this price reduction at the register has received it from the retailer, not the manufacturer. The purchaser is then entitled to receive the rebate from the manufacturer unless the retailer chooses to keep the rebate forms and information and submit them for the retailer's benefit. Either way, the manufacturer only has to pay one rebate, thus all is legal.
And don't get me started about morals and large corporations, I personally have had valid rebate submittals rejected for blatantly false reasons on more than one occasion. I have then had to resubmit copies of the identical paper work and information just to get what was rightfully mine in the first place, causing a delay of months from when I was supposed to receive my money.
The summary doesn't indicate "paid" for a situation where the store is in compliance with the law. Again, your argument here is in the idea that while the law states one thing, you can assume it means something different.
Your first sentence, about it being clear... hah, not to be a jerk, but if it were made so clear... why do we have 3 pages of posts about it's clairity?
Under your assumption of the law, the retailer would be provided to pay the consumer for advertising any rebate at all. There is NOTHING wrong with advertising a rebate, nothing deceptive about it, and surely, nothing wrong with doing it. Is it annoying? Sure it is. But to be deceptive means to mislead, and there is nothing misleading about openly stating all the math to obtain a price.
Again Ness, learn to read and understand before typing. This thread is 3 pages long primarily because of you. Your entire basis for posting in this thread ad nauseum is to prove that
your interpretation of the CT law is the only correct way it can be interpreted. The summary says that the retailer won't have to pay for the rebate if they don't include it in the advertised net price, thus why would they have to pay if they are in compliance with the law?!?!?!
And the CT law
does state that there is nothing wrong with advertising a rebate. It just states that you can't include the rebate in the final advertised price without providing the rebate amount (meaning "pay") at the check out. This is not MY assumption, it's the meaning and intent of the law. For the third time, call the free phone number (it's free so it's a hot deal) or check the website for yourself, or are you too afraid to admit that you are wrong.
Intake,
Don't give up on the hot deals forum. Without people like you most of us wouldn't have been aware of this information. There will always be thread crappers, just ignore them or prove them wrong if you want to.