Almost Denied at Kroger yesterday

To take a different approach to the subject - would those 28 2-liters have gone unsold? Not likely. Why does it matter if 1 person buys 28 bottles or 28 people buy 1 bottle each? Kroger set the price to sell the Pepsi. They sold the Pepsi. End of story.

And before someone cries that they missed out on their Pepsi, you should have gotten there first. My first wife used to throw a fit when something was on sale at Target and when she finally got there, they were out of her size. Her argument? "They should have enough in stock for everyone!" Ridiculous!

Makes me think of the people that line up outside the Wal-Marts all night before Black Friday for the best deals.

Interestingly, I saw the news story yesterday about the Best Buy glitch where they offered a 52 inch HD Samsumg on their website for $9.99. Obviously this was roughly $1,700 below MSRP, and they refused to honor any purchases made before the glitch was fixed.

To take a different approach to the subject - would those 28 2-liters have gone unsold? Not likely. Why does it matter if 1 person buys 28 bottles or 28 people buy 1 bottle each? Kroger set the price to sell the Pepsi. They sold the Pepsi.

If they did run out of product it could've left 27 people with a bad feeling for Kroger because the product they wanted wasn't available. Other than that I totally agree with you.

In all reality the problem actually goes back to Pepsi and their pricing structure. If the lower volume sellers can get a better discount they wouldn't have to go to the big stores to buy their product! Not saying they shouldn't be some kind of discounting structure but maybe it shouldn't be so drastic and maybe the small retailers should get points for continued purchasing etc.

I still don't entirely understand why people are getting so upset about Todd's actions. All vague notions of what is and isn't ethical aside, Mark made one of the few (if not the only) good point when he said that selling out of Pepsi products would leave people with a bad taste in their mouth about Kroger. However, I still don't entirely see that situation as being the fault of the retailer who purchases from another retailer.

Kroger negotiated with Pepsi, got a low price, and undercut the competition significantly. I'm absolutely certain they were still making a profit.

If their goal is making a profit, then they have succeeded. If they didn't want to sell out too quickly, then they should have either posted a limit or stocked more Pepsi. The first was corporate's duty, and the second was the duty of the manager. They did neither of those things.

We can't expect Todd to pay more for Pepsi when he can buy them cheaper at Kroger. That's not only bad business, but foolish in general. (Unless of course you're philosophically opposed to Kroger, but that's another argument.) Kroger is making a profit, which I'm sure is their primary goal in all of their transactions.

In the end, this was a win-win situation, and I find it almost impossible to categorize any such transaction as being unethical. If anyone has a concrete (or even asphalt ) reason that Todd's actions were improper, then I would love to hear it. Otherwise I'm inclined to call him a savvy businessman and be done with it.

[Robin Garr]

If anyone has a concrete (or even asphalt ) reason that Todd's actions were improper, then I would love to hear it. Otherwise I'm inclined to call him a savvy businessman and be done with it.

Well said. More to the point, I thought the issue in the first place was that the Kroger manager refused to sell in quantity even though there was no printed rule limiting the number of purchases. This happened BEFORE he knew Todd was in retail.

I still don't entirely understand why people are getting so upset about Todd's actions. All vague notions of what is and isn't ethical aside, Mark made one of the few (if not the only) good point when he said that selling out of Pepsi products would leave people with a bad taste in their mouth about Kroger. However, I still don't entirely see that situation as being the fault of the retailer who purchases from another retailer.

Kroger negotiated with Pepsi, got a low price, and undercut the competition significantly. I'm absolutely certain they were still making a profit.

If their goal is making a profit, then they have succeeded. If they didn't want to sell out too quickly, then they should have either posted a limit or stocked more Pepsi. The first was corporate's duty, and the second was the duty of the manager. They did neither of those things.

We can't expect Todd to pay more for Pepsi when he can buy them cheaper at Kroger. That's not only bad business, but foolish in general. (Unless of course you're philosophically opposed to Kroger, but that's another argument.) Kroger is making a profit, which I'm sure is their primary goal in all of their transactions.

In the end, this was a win-win situation, and I find it almost impossible to categorize any such transaction as being unethical. If anyone has a concrete (or even asphalt ) reason that Todd's actions were improper, then I would love to hear it. Otherwise I'm inclined to call him a savvy businessman and be done with it.

I completely agree with you IF we are only talking about bottom-line financial decisions.

IF though we add in ethics and the "ethical" argument to buy local, then Todd appears to be a hypocrite.

IF we all made our decisions based on bottom-line financial decisions and these decisions only, I'd buy alot more from Kroger. And would I be called a "savvy businessman"? Todd did, after all, contribute to Kroger's profit and buying power.

I don't think I have a problem with the practice, but I think Paul's point is important - the free pass comes only if "all vague notions of what is and isn't ethical [are put] aside." If I were the local business owner in this situation, I'd have kept the whole story to myself, as the story, from my perspective, can only hurt him in a PR sense. Sure, he looks like a savvy businessman. But that's a pejorative term I use to describe Wal-Mart.

IF though we add in ethics and the "ethical" argument to buy local, then Todd appears to be a hypocrite.

Ummm, I'm not getting this one. The product at issue is Pepsi, decidely not local. Are you advocating that he should purchase the Pepsi that he then sells in his store locally? Or that his distributor should be local? Or that he shouldn't sell Pepsi? Or that he should purchase locally. . .uhh. . .manufactured soda products?

Sorry, I'm just don't get your point there.

[Robin Garr]

Or that he should purchase locally. . .uhh. . .manufactured soda products?

That would be Havana Cola. Which makes (made?) great product, and which appears to have fallen off the radar.

Sorry, I'm just don't get your point there.

I was a little regretful about Matthew's tone. "Todd appears to be a hypocrite" may be his honest opinion, but it's not the kind of thing one would want to say to one's neighbor in a friendly bar, and that makes it a little edgy in this friendly forum.

Has anyone ever noticed the "industrial food" section in most Krogers?
You know the section where they stock the huge jars of pickles, huge boxes of mashed potato mix, and gallon jars of ranch dressing?
Kroger wouldn't have this little section there for small restaurant/catering operations would they?
No, i'm sure its all meant for back yard barbecues and such.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with a business denying to sell product to someone. There's too much personal opinion that could be interjected into a commercial business operation. You post your rules, and then abide by them ( and take a small loss if you neglect to be specific). Otherwise, you could be heading down a slippery slope...does an employee/manager refuse to sell something to someone not dressed nicely enough at a fancy boutique, or someone who is black?

Deb

You absolutely should be able to buy whatever you want at any grocery! No, Kroger is not a wholesaler, but in todays economy, you do what you have to do. I might not have been able to keep my cool as you did and I admire your patience to purchase what you should have been able to purchase. Been there, done that!

As a retailer, if I put something on sale, without any posted limits, then I honor the advertisement and make the sale. I'm sure that there are restaurants that will do a low priced special to bring people into their place, with hopes that they will buy a drink, or dessert to help make up any loss of profit that the special might bring. And of course there are customers that will only buy that special, with a glass of water. The restaurant will not deny service to the customer who only buys the special and nothing more.

I will run specials on certain products at little profit in hopes of bringing people in the store. You hope that they might get something else when they come in, but if not, you give them good service and hope they think of you the next time that need something. This is the whole reason that stores like Kroger put items like sodas on special in hopes that it brings you in the store. They very easily can impose limits via their advertising or signage on the shelves. Arbitrarily singling me out to deny me the products, and their overall handling of the situation was the point of my post. I can understand if some people think I am breaking some unwritten rule, and respect their opinions. That is the beauty of a forum like this one. I would guess that they would be surprised at how many small business purchase from grocery stores for products every day. In my case, I ran out of Pepsi 2 Liters, and was not getting a delivery until next week. I made the decision to go to Kroger to get product to refill my shelves until I would get a delivery.

I don't know. This seems so sketchy on your part. I mean your dessert analogy does not involve them ultimately buying 28 desserts and re-selling them at a higher price at their competing business.

I am amazed at how much attention this post has gotten. I am also amazed at the range of opinions.

Kroger does not care, nor has the right to care, what the customer does with the product once it is paid for. What if Todd had bought 28 apples? No one at Kroger blinks an eye. He puts them on the counter next to his cash register and resells them. So? He paid Kroger's posted retail for them, the product is now his to do what he wants with it.

Kroger made a business decision to sell Pepsi at a specific retail, with no limits. A person made a business decision to buy the product. Where is the controversy?

I have a real issue with stores changing policy mid-stream. If there was no limit posted either by the product or in the ad, you should have been able to buy them. I've seen people with CARTS full of the same items at Wal-mart , and have never seen them turned down.
If the price was in their flyer, take it to Wal-mart. They'll ad match it.

I see nothing wrong with what you did at all. People do it all the time.

Basic contract law: Offer + acceptance = binding agreement/contract.

Kroger offered to sell Pepsi at a certain price.
The OP accepted the offer by bringing the liters to the checkout and attempting to pay for them.
A contract was formed.
Kroger breached the contract when it refused to sell them to the customer.

End of story. Ethics is not a factor.

With no restrictions posted, Kroger was obligated to sell as many as the customer accepted.

Disclaimer: The above does not constitute legal advice nor does reading it create a lawyer-client relationship between me and either Kroger or the OP, or anyone else who reads this post. (yes, I am a lawyer.)

Basic contract law: Offer + acceptance = binding agreement/contract.

Kroger offered to sell Pepsi at a certain price.
The OP accepted the offer by bringing the liters to the checkout and attempting to pay for them.
A contract was formed.
Kroger breached the contract when it refused to sell them to the customer.

End of story. Ethics is not a factor.

With no restrictions posted, Kroger was obligated to sell as many as the customer accepted.

Disclaimer: The above does not constitute legal advice nor does reading it create a lawyer-client relationship between me and either Kroger or the OP, or anyone else who reads this post. (yes, I am a lawyer.)

Lawyers make it so nice and fuzzy.......

(just messing with you.....thanks for laying it out like that.... question: if Kroger denied the sale, could someone actually sue? )