Retailer (Saks) vs. Consumer..., who is right?

[diagem]

"Saks Sues Customer in Diamond Brooch Case - How Should This be Resolved?

The Oregonian, PORTLAND: Who pays the price for a retailer''s pricing error? Who shoulders the blame for a high-end pricing error? Opinions vary on best way to resolve case.

Perusing the Saks Fifth Avenue jewelry counter one Sunday in late September, customer Emily Pickering hovered over a set of designer earrings and a matching brooch.

Two sales clerks at the downtown Portland store showed her the gold and diamond earrings and the 8 carat diamond brooch and told her the set was $28,000, according to a lawsuit filed by Saks this past week in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

Pickering agreed, paid for the Barry Kieselstein-Cord jewelry and headed back home to Seattle.

Problem was that the earrings and brooch weren''t a set, according to Saks'' complaint. The upscale department store discovered the next day that the brooch''s price tag --for $48,000 --had fallen off unbeknownst to the sales people."

Story here:

http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=24121

 

[neatfreak]

Timely, this is a big issue right now over on the mommy threads about a car seat pricing mishap! Under this circumstance however, I believe the consumer is in the right because by taking her $ and giving her the goods, they made a contract of sorts? I don''t know...

 

[diamondfan]

she acted in good faith at the store. she was told a price by an agent of the store and she paid that. once she left, I am not sure it is really legal to call and say, Oops, we were wrong. Seems bait and switch to me. This time there might be a legit error, but other times it could be a scam or trick. She paid what she was told. I think on a certain level Saks has to deal. The mark up is SO high anyway there are not losing that much in the long run as far as I can see.

 

[stone-cold11]

A contract was made when the goods and $$ exchanged hands. I don't think Saks should have any right to renege on the deal.

EDT
At least that is the case under British contract law.

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 11/17/2008 4:35:27 PM
Author:DiaGem

''Saks Sues Customer in Diamond Brooch Case - How Should This be Resolved?

The Oregonian, PORTLAND: Who pays the price for a retailer''s pricing error? Who shoulders the blame for a high-end pricing error? [snip]

The easy answer in this case is "the saleperson(s) who handled the sale". I think someone may be looking for a new job...

 

[decodelighted]

They should NEVER have sued the customer. STUPID STUPID STUPID. They''re not losing that much $$ ... AND they have to pay legal fees ... and the word of mouth among high end shoppers (the only ones STILL SHOPPING) is going to be lethal.

What fools.

 

[strmrdr]

In most states once the sale is complete and the person leaves with the goods unless they can prove the customer removed the tag they do not have a case.
The store has the right to cancel the sale before that point but not after.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is a link consumers can actually Read and has a legal opinion:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1226645709307270.xml&coll=7

 

[strmrdr]

Btw I have been in this situation as a consumer/vendor but only for about $150 on car stereo equipment.
They called me to tell me as I know them and did tons of business with them and did not ask for it back or more money.
As I had already installed it and my client had been told a price there was nothing I could do.
If I hadn't I would have offered to cover the difference between what I paid and their cost($85) and charged my client more.
I figured that would have been fair.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 11/17/2008 4:47:10 PM
Author: diamondfan
she acted in good faith at the store. she was told a price by an agent of the store and she paid that. once she left, I am not sure it is really legal to call and say, Oops, we were wrong. Seems bait and switch to me. This time there might be a legit error, but other times it could be a scam or trick. She paid what she was told. I think on a certain level Saks has to deal. The mark up is SO high anyway there are not losing that much in the long run as far as I can see.

Ditto.

Saks needs to deal with their own mistake. The customer has nothing to do with their error. This is absurd.

 

[radiantquest]

i side with the consumer. the items were sold to her fair and square. it is not her fault that 2 SA didnt know about their merchandise. i believe that in retail even if a tag is wrong it has to be sold at that price regardless of whether it is correct. it is the responsiblity of the establishment to have this information current, not the consumer.

 

[honey22]

In Australia, the consumer would be in the right for sure. They were told by a representative of Saks, so that''s the same as Saks telling them the price. They can''t turn around now and change their mind. It''s their fault they didn''t educate their staff properly. As for the SA, down under, if you make a mistake at work (an honest mistake, and not acting maliciously) then your company has to wear the costs if something goes wrong. Take the new apprentice builder who dropped the spa bath through the top floor of the new house, smashing onto the bottom level doing thousands and thousands of dollars damage. His new employer (of just a week or two) had to cough up the money, the staff member is not at fault, he is covered by his employers insurance policy.

honestly, the bad publicity for Saks is probably causing them to lose more than what the brooch was worth anyway. A-holes! Just wear it!

 

[Diamond*Dana]

It is not the costomers fault, she did her part by paying for the goods. IMO Saks needs to take the loss on this sale.

 

[Deelight]

Date: 11/17/2008 5:44:38 PM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 11/17/2008 4:47:10 PM

Author: diamondfan

she acted in good faith at the store. she was told a price by an agent of the store and she paid that. once she left, I am not sure it is really legal to call and say, Oops, we were wrong. Seems bait and switch to me. This time there might be a legit error, but other times it could be a scam or trick. She paid what she was told. I think on a certain level Saks has to deal. The mark up is SO high anyway there are not losing that much in the long run as far as I can see.

Ditto.


Saks needs to deal with their own mistake. The customer has nothing to do with their error. This is absurd.

Double Ditto the fact they are suing her over this matter is just absurd

 

[Imdanny]

It''s offensive that they''re saying she did something wrong by suing her. Terrible.

 

[lakai]

So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

What right or wrong? This is a clear case of contract law, once goods/service are exchanged for legal tender, the deal is done, you cannot go back on the deal unless there are evidence of wrong doing such as the customer removing the price tag resulting in the SA being mis-represented then that is fraud and there is a case to be judge. The judge should have just throw out the law suit when it is filed.

Are you saying that if I am a diamond vendor, I can sell you a 1ct, D IF Round diamond for $1000 and then after you leave the shop I can say 'OH sorry, it should be $10000, now please pay me or I will sue you!'.

If that is the case, I will take your business anyday. This will just be a never-ending money tree.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:56:34 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM

Author: lakai

So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

What right or wrong? This is a clear case of contract law, once goods/service are exchanged for legal tender, the deal is done, you cannot go back on the deal unless there are evidence of wrong doing such as the customer removing the price tag resulting in the SA being mis-represented then that is fraud and there is a case to be judge. The judge should have just throw out the law suit when it is filed.

Are you saying that if I am a diamond vendor, I can sell you a 1ct, D IF Round diamond for $1000 and then after you leave the shop I can say 'OH sorry, it should be $10000, now please pay me or I will sue you!'.

If that is the case, I will take your business anyday. This will just be a never-ending money tree.

I just pricescope a 1ct, D IF stone and found I under charge again, so now I change that asking price now to $100000 and by your logic I am still in my right to do so?

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I agree with SC - what you have said doesn''t make sense - so you are implying the buyer is in the wrong?

Why? Did she lie, cheat? no.
Please clarify a reasonable argument rather than attempting to insult the contributors to this thread !

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I can see the moral issue. But did you read the article? It appears that the only thing that Saks offered was a discount (albeit a generous one) on the $48,000 this mistake could cost them.

"Pickering [the customer] would say only that the importance of the suit isn''t about the merchandise. Instead, she said, she was angered and appalled by a letter she received from Saks informing her that if she didn''t pay or return the brooch, the company would charge her credit card for the full amount without her consent.

Saks didn''t charge Pickering''s card and, in a brief statement, the company told The Desk on Friday that it had repeatedly apologized to Pickering and offered generous options to resolve the matter. "For reasons we do not understand," the statement read, "Ms. Pickering continues to refuse to return the brooch to Saks Fifth Avenue or to pay for it."

Assuming her good faith in the initial transaction, I don''t see that Saks has acted in a way that would cause the customer to be willing to cooperate, and is probably on a legal road to nowhere.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/18/2008 9:14:30 AM
Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I can see the moral issue. But did you read the article? It appears that the only thing that Saks offered was a discount (albeit a generous one) on the $48,000 this mistake could cost them.

OMC, most of the posters here cannot read the article as it would require a subscription to access.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/18/2008 10:33:10 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 11/18/2008 9:14:30 AM

Author: oldmancoyote

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM

Author: lakai

So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I can see the moral issue. But did you read the article? It appears that the only thing that Saks offered was a discount (albeit a generous one) on the $48,000 this mistake could cost them.

OMC, most of the posters here cannot read the article as it would require a subscription to access.

I posted a no membership required link with a legal opinion from a lawyer a few posts down from the top.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I do see the moral side but also see the contractual nature of the sales deal. I once left Target and got to my car and realized an item was hidden under my sons car seat and I didn''t pay for it. I had my kids with me and couldn''t go back in at the time but called Target right away and told them. Upon my next visit I went in and paid for the $3 item. the customer service people thought I was crazy b/c they said most people would have not returned and paid. It would have been stealing in my book to not make good. This gals situation is a bit different. She asked for pricing, was sold the items and paid for them. It too band for Saks, but to go after her on their mistake is wrong. Now, if she feels guilty b/c she now knows the pricing was an error than she can return it or pay for it, but I don''t see her being morally obligated to do so.

 

[goobear78]

I see the moral issue of it of course. I think if the purchaser, knew that the charge was wrong when she purchased the item (ie. she saw the original price tag), then she has a moral obligation to inform the vendor or to return the time. However, as the facts have been stated, she acted in good faith that the items were purchased for the amount given. She didn''t know about the increase/price difference until Saxs sent her a letter. At that point, the onus is on Saxs. She paid and left with the item. End of story. Stinks for Saxs, but what''s worse is the publicity they will get over this. I feel sorry for the woman that she has to deal with this headache and hire a lawyer. But not too bad since she did get a steal.

 

[Shoopy]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

I don''t see this as a moral issue at all even if the consumer knew the price of the brooch prior to ringing it up.

How many times have you gone into a store, picked up something thinking you''ll pay x amount and when you go to the register they inform you its on sale?? You don''t sit back and say "well morally I know this is $10.99 but you''re saying it''s $2.99 because of a sale. No, I''m sorry please charge me the $10.99" No. You say well dang, today''s my lucky day.

Point is that even if the woman had seen the price, how was she to know whether there was a sale or not. And who is she to question what "authority" says, in this case the "authority" being the salespeople? Why would she even question it?

To me the real person at fault here is the store general manager that didn''t train his/her employees well enough to identify sales throughout the store. And the victim here is this woman who is now being bothered by some silly lawsuit because the store couldn''t get their act together.

 

[diagem]

I just dont understand how such a huge Co. like Saks is misinterpreting the negative effect such a story can cause....

Unless of-course there is another side to the story (which we dont know)...

 

[Circe]

I can''t remember the details of the thread I''m thinking of, or I''d link it, but a few years ago there was a poster who was worried that he might have received the wrong stone in his setting. He took it to be appraised after he proposed, and it turns out that his fears, while not unfounded, had gone in the wrong direction: his company had given him the *wrong* stone, but it was a better one! An F VS1 instead of a G VS2, something like that. As I recall, that thread was full of moralizing: on the one hand, some posters felt that he should return the stone on principle, as it wasn''t what he''d paid for, or pay the difference; on the other hand, it was the stores mistake, and why should he (and his fiancee!) be punished for their error with the emotional turmoil of returning an object they''d grown attached to?

This seems like a similar case, and, as I recall, all moralizing aside, that company eventually acknowledged its error, for all the reasons that people have listed above. Saks is shooting itself in the foot on this one.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/18/2008 11:14:31 AM
Author: goobear78
I see the moral issue of it of course. I think if the purchaser, knew that the charge was wrong when she purchased the item (ie. she saw the original price tag), then she has a moral obligation to inform the vendor or to return the time.

Agreed. If she knew the sales associate gave her the wrong price and she didn''t correct them, then what she did was wrong. But she acted in good faith in this situation and I don''t think this is an issue of right and wrong on her part at this point!

 

[cara]

For those looking at this as a moral issue, what about the perspective of it being a moral hazard in terms of rewarding Saks bad business practices? If Saks has poor training for their staff and poor procedures in place to keep tags on expensive items, what message does it send if this woman were to return the brooch and spare them the financial consequences of their poor business practices? It says, don''t train your staff better or keep better track of inventory, rather just hire lawyers to send of threatening letters and sue customers that, through no ill action on their part, received a windfall from Saks'' mistake.

There is a moral issue here, but I can totally see this from the woman''s perspective. Once the sale is complete and she has left the store, Saks'' only real good move was to appeal to her sense of decency and fairness and ask her to unwind the transaction. Instead they threatened to charge her credit card without her permission and then sued.

I do think that customers have a moral obligation to correct clerks as they are making mistakes if the customer realizes it is a mistake - which is different than if they are told at the front of a store that an item is unexpectedly on sale. Most people wouldn''t think that the store was making a mistake in that case, and thus they are under no obligation to insist on paying full price.

People also have an obligation to correct their own mistakes if they discover them later - such as accidentally shoplifting an item.

But I don''t think people are required to correct a store''s mistake after the fact. If they want to, great, but otherwise what''s done is done...

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:45:41 AM
Author: lakai
So none of you see the moral issue here ? Its most likely that Saks exhausted all means before they decided to file a lawsuit. Its a sad thing to see none of you care about right and wrong.

You can''t legislate MORALITY. They''re not suing on "moral grounds" ... they''re suing on LEGAL grounds. And they''re gonna lose on legal grounds. Without more information we can''t know the truth of the "moral" responsibility. Its only immoral IMHO if the customer knew that she was taking advantage of dumb salespeople *during* the transaction. Should everyone who stumbles onto good deals at art auctions or antique stores or garage sales have to *return* items if the seller later experiences remorse? Dunthinkso.