ULTA: Illegal pricing practice

[navane]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Certainly the law is in place for a good reason to protect consumers (and competition in the marketplace), but I'm just taking the side that there are some things worth fighting for, and for the effort and potential impacts, $1.50 (or essentially a 20oz bottle of soda) seems rather minimal in the scheme of things. Now someone advertising a new car for only $500 then pulling some sort of bait and switch - that's quite a bit different. But this? A little perspective is all I ask...

Ok...at what price cut-off do you think it is appropriate to pursue justice on the basis of principal? $20? $100?

What if I pushed someone's grandmother? Is it ok if I just give a moderate one-handed push to the shoulder or does it not cross the line until I use two hands or until grandma hits the pavement?

At what level of "wrong" does the law kick in?

I could use your logic and say that if $1.50 was "no big deal", then why did the store manager fuss so much about it and refuse to give SoCalGirl the advertised price? $1.50 should have been nothing to the "Prestige Manager". Why should the customer be required to accommodate the mistake of a retailer who broke a law specifically designed for moments like that one?

.....Kelly

[BigRedBeta]

Originally Posted by navane

Ok...at what price cut-off do you think it is appropriate to pursue justice on the basis of principal? $20? $100?

What if I pushed someone's grandmother? Is it ok if I just give a moderate one-handed push to the shoulder or does it not cross the line until I use two hands or until grandma hits the pavement?

At what level of "wrong" does the law kick in?

I could use your logic and say that if $1.50 was "no big deal", then why did the store manager fuss so much about it and refuse to give SoCalGirl the advertised price? $1.50 should have been nothing to the "Prestige Manager". Why should the customer be required to accommodate the mistake of a retailer who broke a law specifically designed for moments like that one?

.....Kelly

Again, my issue with this situation is that it goes well beyond $1.50. SoCalGirl is, or was at least considering, aiming to severely affect the livelihood of this "Prestige Manager".

And I'm not defending the "Prestige Manager" either. No one in this situation has acted (in my opinion) appropriately. This is really coming down the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Is ULTA breaking this law as a policy, or did their stock person simply do a shitty job and not pull the tag when the sale expired? If it was a mistake, then SoCalGirl's response is entirely unwarranted (though the store should have just obliged). If she can prove there is rampant abuse of the concept of a sale, then that's very different. I'm no lawyer, but fraud (which is what I assume this law was put in place to prevent) - seems to me - requires some sort of intent to deceive.

As for a cost guidelines - I'm not going to say that there's a specific $ amount or even a percentage of original cost that's always going to work. Certainly $20 on a $60 item is much different than $20 on a $600 item.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Is ULTA breaking this law as a policy, or did their stock person simply do a shitty job and not pull the tag when the sale expired? If it was a mistake, then SoCalGirl's response is entirely unwarranted (though the store should have just obliged). If she can prove there is rampant abuse of the concept of a sale, then that's very different. I'm no lawyer, but fraud (which is what I assume this law was put in place to prevent) - seems to me - requires some sort of intent to deceive.

I'm sorry, i don't agree. From what I read, SoCalGirl had an appropriate response. Even if it was a stock person's fault for leaving the sign, the manager should abide by the law and allow the sale. Afterall, like some have said $1.50 shouldn't matter.

It's the principle of the thing. SoCalGirl shouldn't just "give up" or leave it alone because the manager refused to allow the sale.