Almost Denied at Kroger yesterday

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.

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.

While I would definitely call someone a hypocrite at a friendly bar, it was probably not the best term to use, both in terms of tone and clarity.

My point is pretty simple: For someone who defends the whole "buy local argument," including the degree to which locals pay attention to customer service, Todd shouldn't be to surprised to receive poor service and questionable management decisions from Kroger. You know, the old saying, if you dance with the devil...

So he was out of product. He needed product. He went to buy it at the lost price point. In doing so, he ran into the stupidity of Kroger. I'm not surprised, and I don't really feel any sympathy for him.

Probably too strong a term on my part. But hey, there's a difference between appearance and reality. That statement was only in relation to Todd's retelling of this story (which changed) and my reading of these posts.

This is an open and shut case in my opinion: Kroger offered a product at a certain price. No limits were given. They are thus required to sell the product at the price they advertised. Period. Done.

(it makes no difference if the buyer is reselling it. That is the buyer's right!)

I am digging up memories from my business law classes 33 years ago, so don't hold me to this, but here is what I remember about a retail establishment, their pricing, and the consumer.

The posting of a price by an establishment does not constitute an "offer". It is an invitation for the consumer to "bid" on the product, and then the merchant must accept the consumer's bid (offer) before a contract exists between the two.

From the information originally given, Kroger was not going to accept his offer!.. NO CONTRACT.

Now if this happened to me I would never shop at that establishment again, but Kroger was not "legally" obligated to accept the offer.

Things may (and probably have) changed in 33 years, but that is how I remember it.

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.

Well said!

I am digging up memories from my business law classes 33 years ago, so don't hold me to this, but here is what I remember about a retail establishment, their pricing, and the consumer.

The posting of a price by an establishment does not constitute an "offer". It is an invitation for the consumer to "bid" on the product, and then the merchant must accept the consumer's bid (offer) before a contract exists between the two.

From the information originally given, Kroger was not going to accept his offer!.. NO CONTRACT.

Now if this happened to me I would never shop at that establishment again, but Kroger was not "legally" obligated to accept the offer.

Things may (and probably have) changed in 33 years, but that is how I remember it.

I'm not a lawyer, but posting a price sure as heck seems like an offer to me! And I'd bet (money) that most reasonable people would feel the same way. Which is usually the way the law works in the US. (the reasonable person test).

You're saying that if an apple is marked $1.00, then that is just an invitation to bid on it? That is ridiculous. Can you cite anything to back up your claim? If you mark it a buck, you're saying it costs a buck. Pretty simple!!!

There's a question yet unanswered....

Does a vendor have the prerogative target the retail market and refuse to sell to other retailers?

Or is this against some law I don't know about.

There's a question yet unanswered....

Does a vendor have the prerogative target the retail market and refuse to sell to other retailers?

Or is this against some law I don't know about.

I know a lot of bars have the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. Good question. I mean I can kick people out of my shop (for rudeness or whatever). It is my property. So maybe stores like Kroger can do so also. I suppose it is in their rights (maybe). But wouldn't it be false advertising then?

Any lawyers here? (I have a lawyer friend I can ask on Thursday if I remember).

Any lawyers here? (I have a lawyer friend I can ask on Thursday if I remember).

This is too friendly a place for lawyers to be present.

As a private business owner, I think they do have the right to refuse service to 'anyone'. But that doesn't mean they will actually refuse service to anyone. If indeed an incidence happens, the owner can be summoned to the court resulted from a lawsuit from a customer. The owner may win or lose depending on specific situations.A sign like this doesn't offer any explicit or implicit implication of intention to discriminate. It only serves to state owner's right. Yes, under many conditions, the owner is legal to refuse service to anyone who may disrupt the business.

Well...shut my mouth. Looks like I mis-remembered my contracts law class. I did a little research and yes, it appears that in the retail context, the customer is the one who makes the offer to buy, and it is up to the shopkeeper to accept that offer. Ridiculous, I know. But the theory is that otherwise, when the customer picks up the item from the shelf, s/he has accepted the offer to sell. Thanks for correcting me!

(See, I'm not one of those arrogant lawyers who can't admit making a mistake.)

Sames rules/laws apply with pricing errors I guess.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_ ... cing_error

By MAE ANDERSON, AP Retail Writer Mae Anderson, Ap Retail Writer – Wed Aug 12, 4:53 pm ET
NEW YORK – Few if any of the deals retailers have offered online during the recession have been as good as Best Buy Inc.'s sale price of $9.99 on a 52-inch TV Wednesday. But it quickly turned out the offer was too good to be true.

The electronics retailer said it will not honor the $9.99 price posted Wednesday morning on its Web site for a 52-inch Samsung flat-screen TV. By early afternoon, the TV was listed at $1,799.99, almost half off the original $3,399.99 price.

Bloggers and Twitterers lit up the Internet with posts about the offer, some insisting Best Buy must honor it, others making jokes.

Best Buy, based in Richfield, Minn., said it has corrected an online pricing error and will not honor the incorrect price. Orders made Wednesday morning at the incorrect price will be canceled and customers will receive refunds, the company said.

Best Buy did not immediately return a call for additional comment.

Shares fell 27 cents to close at $36.50 Wednesday.

I haven't been to the store in question, and didn't read their ad or POS, but advertisements present an interesting contractual issue...

Many ads which appear in mass media typically are NOT offers to sell, because they usually don't contain sufficient words of commitment to sell; they are often interpreted as invitations to the public to come and purchase -- and under such circumstances, a merchant may refuse to sell the product....BUT, if the ad contains words expressing the advertiser's intent to sell a particular number of units of that product, or sell the items in a particular manner, then there may be an offer, which the customer accepts by coming to the store and purchasing under the terms advertised...

e.g., Kroger advertises Pepsi Cola as a "Thursday-only Special" for $X per case, "First come, First served"...this might constitute an offer and (unless an express purchase limit is stated in the ad) a customer could conceivably come in an buy whatever quantity they chose....the more specific the terms in the ad/POS, then the more likely it constitutes an offer....

...SO, if Kroger's ad simply stated, "Pepsi-Cola $X/case", it may not have been sufficiently worded to be an offer, and therefore (legally) the manager could have been in a position to refuse to sell the quantity you wanted to buy...apparently, he opted not to do that in order to defuse the situation and get you out of the store...but the ad should have been more specifically worded as to the specific terms of purchase...

There's a question yet unanswered....

Does a vendor have the prerogative target the retail market and refuse to sell to other retailers?

Or is this against some law I don't know about.

Conceivably, yes...if they word the advertising/POS correctly.

Wow. This topic just leads me to more questions.

1. What can one actually do if you're refused the ability to buy a product that is advertised? Sue? I.e. what is the consumer's recourse?

2. I don't see how any reasonable consumer could not conceive that a product advertised with a price next to it is not an offer to sell. I'd say false advertising if they claim otherwise.

3. I'm still wondering about the right to refuse service to anyone. Couldn't a store always claim that, and say, well, it is only intended for home use and not for resalers, and so we choose to refuse service to you because you are a resaler? I think I might be on Kroger's side if that is their explanation (assuming it is legal, which I kind of suspect it is).

4. I guess I'm mostly concerned about the false advertising aspects here....

Well, whatever. I think we've pretty much beaten this issue to death...

Cheers,

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sales

Here. Someone can knock themselves silly and attempt to find the answer with this link.