At DaliRacing, they're saling it for FREE!!!
I know BBSC is cheap, but I didn't know it was this cheap!!!
- Thread starter Zuerst
- Start date
Dali typically has $0.00 pricing on stuff it hasn't set pricing for.
IIRC, BBSC sells for about $5600 + 400 install, so about $6K, plus
- COOLant tank (~200)
- go-fast stickers
IIRC, BBSC sells for about $5600 + 400 install, so about $6K, plus
- COOLant tank (~200)
- go-fast stickers
I'll take one please!
Not very smart. You can be legally held to an advertised price.
Well, actually the legal principal is not one of lack consideration. It's an issue of contract formation in the first place. IOW, has a contract even been created yet? The relevant common law rule here holds that an advertisement to the public such as this only invites potential buyers to make offers to purchase the product in question, as opposed to actually making an offer to sell it to them. Therefore, Dali is not obligated to actually sell any BBSC's for $0.00.
David is partially correct, becuase there is an exception- if the advertisement contains specific words of commitment, especially a promise to sell a particular number of units, then it may be an offer. (Example: "100 men's jackets at $26 apiece, first come first served starting Saturday," is so specific that it probably is an offer.)
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 01 June 2002).]
David is partially correct, becuase there is an exception- if the advertisement contains specific words of commitment, especially a promise to sell a particular number of units, then it may be an offer. (Example: "100 men's jackets at $26 apiece, first come first served starting Saturday," is so specific that it probably is an offer.)
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 01 June 2002).]
It is NOT an issue of contract law. Comercial speech/advertising law requires that an advertised price be met by a person making a good faith attempt to respond to the ad. You can limit your liability by including (clearly, in the same ad) a specific number of the item for sale at that price or the more general 'while supplies last.' The only real exception is if it is CLEARLY a typo, which this is not, as the site uses that price on several items.
If this:[which is posted above the database price listing]
"This is the SC kit that you have been waiting for! Get Better than Big Boy performance without the Big Name Price. The $5600.00 with free install deal is over as we have reached the target for pre sales of 30 kits. New price to be posted this week. Installation by Mark Basch @ the Dali Racing Area 51.5 Shop in San Diego or Basch Acura Service in Phoenix is now $400.00."
still needs clarifying for you, please consult an attorney or an English teacher to have them explain it to you.
------------------
need more info? please private me @
[email protected]
Mark Johnson, CEO of Custodial Services @ Dali Racing, a Not For Profit Company.
Well, it’s a moot point as far as Dali is concerned. But for the record: 1) this can only be an issue of contract law (on what other theory can we force a seller to sell?) and 2) contrary to popular belief, the general rule across the U.S. is that in the absence of special circumstances an advertisement is not an offer but rather only an invitation to deal. You may have to think about this for a moment to see the significance of this distinction. There are three reasons for this rule:
1. ads are indefinite to quantity & terms
2. sellers able to choose with whom they deal
3. ads are addressed to general public – don’t know how many people will accept if was offer.
But hey, don’t believe me.. Take professor Smith’s word for it:
http://www.west.net/~smith/offer.htm
The lead case they teach you in law school on this point (you do remember law school, don’t you?) is Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co In that case, the court discussed the legal effect of an advertisement offering for sale, as a one-day special, an electric sewing machine at a named price. The view was expressed that the advertisement was (38 N.E. 2d 417, 34 Ohio L.A. 605) "not an offer made to any specific person but was made to the public generally. Thereby it would be properly designated as a unilateral offer and not being supported by any consideration could be withdrawn at will and without notice." It is true that such an offer may be withdrawn before acceptance.
….The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in advertisements addressed to the general public is "whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested." 1 Williston, Contracts (Rev. Ed.) § 27.
….Whether in any individual instance a newspaper advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depends on the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. Annotation, 157 A.L.R. 744, 751; 77 C.J.S. Sales § 25b; 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 389.
1. ads are indefinite to quantity & terms
2. sellers able to choose with whom they deal
3. ads are addressed to general public – don’t know how many people will accept if was offer.
But hey, don’t believe me.. Take professor Smith’s word for it:
http://www.west.net/~smith/offer.htm
The lead case they teach you in law school on this point (you do remember law school, don’t you?) is Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co In that case, the court discussed the legal effect of an advertisement offering for sale, as a one-day special, an electric sewing machine at a named price. The view was expressed that the advertisement was (38 N.E. 2d 417, 34 Ohio L.A. 605) "not an offer made to any specific person but was made to the public generally. Thereby it would be properly designated as a unilateral offer and not being supported by any consideration could be withdrawn at will and without notice." It is true that such an offer may be withdrawn before acceptance.
….The test of whether a binding obligation may originate in advertisements addressed to the general public is "whether the facts show that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something requested." 1 Williston, Contracts (Rev. Ed.) § 27.
….Whether in any individual instance a newspaper advertisement is an offer rather than an invitation to make an offer depends on the legal intention of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. Annotation, 157 A.L.R. 744, 751; 77 C.J.S. Sales § 25b; 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 389.
No. There are laws that deal specifically with commercial speech. If only contract laws were applicable, there would be no 'bait and switch' regulations (or they would be unenforceable). The FTC can (and does) regulate advertising as seperate and distinct from the broader body of conract law.
The Dali site is not liable for several reasons - 1) the text included stating the price is to be determined and 2) the 'reasonable person' standard that most jurisdictions use in matters of this nature.
The issue of 'obvious mistake' was addressed in my first post.
I have seen several cases where advertisers were forced by legal action to adhere to a price they did not want to, because they offered it. Dell has done this before and I believe so has Micron. That is why almost all ads now contain the ubiqitous 'prices subject to change without notice' mouse type at the bottom, along with all of the other mindless crap lawyers insert.
BTW, when you look at all that nine point type at the bottom of an ad (especially a direct sales ad) think about why it is there. Every sentence was added over time as some unlucky soul was hammered for something by lawyers and added yet another line of disclaimers to the boiler plate at the bottom of all future ads in an attempt to appease yet another contingent of lawyers. Every line down there has an ugly story behind it; each of them involving lawyers.
The Dali site price is so extreme that it would not be likely to cause liability, but I stand by my assertation that it is a foolish and risky practice.
[This message has been edited by David (edited 01 June 2002).]
Shipping? Don't bother with the trouble. I'll pick it up myself...
Cite?
Any person trying to buy a $5600 supercharger for $0 is clearly acting in bad faith.
------------------
Russ
'91 black/black
[This message has been edited by Russ (edited 01 June 2002).]
You've got to be kidding, right? Either you're a lawyer (not an advertising law specialist, obviously) or you watch too many episodes of Alley McBeal.
In the Dell instance, I was consulting for them at the time and watched them jumping around like jackrabbits putting the fire out from an ad with a wrong price that they had neglected to put the lawyer BS in (happens sometimes because their newspaper ads change so fast). In the Micron incident, I was working with them right after a similar incident which they referred to as "remember when all those ad guys got fired."
You go ahead an advise your clients that the price they advertise doesn't matter. I'll stick with my guys.
The guy I have been using to represent me in advertising law for the past fourteen years is a senior partner at Davis & Gilbert, widely considered to be the world's leading firm in the field of advertising and copyright law. You should contact them right away - you obviously know more about advertising law than they do and they will certainly let you run the place once you tell them how wrong they are.
-----------------------
Those of you who think that there is nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet are mistaken; arguing with a lawyer on the internet is the most pointless pursuit imaginable.
: (
[This message has been edited by David (edited 02 June 2002).]
Originally posted by David:
You've got to be kidding, right? Either you're a lawyer (not an advertising law specialist, obviously) or you watch too many episodes of Alley McBeal.
Russ is 100% correct in asking for a cite. Using legal citations is one of the fundamental ways of supporting your legal assertions.
In the Dell instance, I was consulting for them at the time and watched them jumping around like jackrabbits putting the fire out from an ad with a wrong price that they had neglected to put the lawyer BS in (happens sometimes because their newspaper ads change so fast). In the Micron incident, I was working with them right after a similar incident which they referred to as "remember when all those ad guys got fired."
Quite possible…if you read my above posts, there are certain situations where an ad could be found to be an offer
You go ahead an advise your clients that the price they advertise doesn't matter. I'll stick with my guys.
Therein lies the root of the problem here. It’s not a question of relying on a gut feeling. There is a fairly well-developed test for determining whether a given ad is an invitation to bid or a firm offer. The tough part is to discipline oneself to use their intellect rather than their gut feeling to determine the outcome of a particular problem, particularly if one is very vocal about defending the point of view in a public forum.
The guy I have been using to represent me in advertising law for the past fourteen years is a senior partner at Davis & Gilbert, widely considered to be the world's leading firm in the field of advertising and copyright law. You should contact them right away - you obviously know more about advertising law than they do and they will certainly let you run the place once you tell them how wrong they are.
Come on kids, this is just getting childish!
Those of you who think that there is nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet are mistaken; arguing with a lawyer on the internet is the most pointless pursuit imaginable.
I can understand why you feel this way. Seeing how you refer to attorney workproduct as “lawyer BS”, the feeling must be similar to arguing with your doctor when you are sure that he has prescribed you the wrong “crap”! What do those stupid professional people know anyway!
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 02 June 2002).]
You've got to be kidding, right? Either you're a lawyer (not an advertising law specialist, obviously) or you watch too many episodes of Alley McBeal.
Russ is 100% correct in asking for a cite. Using legal citations is one of the fundamental ways of supporting your legal assertions.
In the Dell instance, I was consulting for them at the time and watched them jumping around like jackrabbits putting the fire out from an ad with a wrong price that they had neglected to put the lawyer BS in (happens sometimes because their newspaper ads change so fast). In the Micron incident, I was working with them right after a similar incident which they referred to as "remember when all those ad guys got fired."
Quite possible…if you read my above posts, there are certain situations where an ad could be found to be an offer
You go ahead an advise your clients that the price they advertise doesn't matter. I'll stick with my guys.
Therein lies the root of the problem here. It’s not a question of relying on a gut feeling. There is a fairly well-developed test for determining whether a given ad is an invitation to bid or a firm offer. The tough part is to discipline oneself to use their intellect rather than their gut feeling to determine the outcome of a particular problem, particularly if one is very vocal about defending the point of view in a public forum.
The guy I have been using to represent me in advertising law for the past fourteen years is a senior partner at Davis & Gilbert, widely considered to be the world's leading firm in the field of advertising and copyright law. You should contact them right away - you obviously know more about advertising law than they do and they will certainly let you run the place once you tell them how wrong they are.
Come on kids, this is just getting childish!
Those of you who think that there is nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet are mistaken; arguing with a lawyer on the internet is the most pointless pursuit imaginable.
I can understand why you feel this way. Seeing how you refer to attorney workproduct as “lawyer BS”, the feeling must be similar to arguing with your doctor when you are sure that he has prescribed you the wrong “crap”! What do those stupid professional people know anyway!
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 02 June 2002).]
Always has a smart remark...I'm suprised anyone does business with this company.
Keeping this off topic thread alive...... about 2 years ago buy.com had an ad for a flatscreen 19" monitor for $149 (that was WAY cheap back then) - obviously a misprint. I ordered one at that price, but my order was cancelled 3 days later. Oh well I tried -----------------> about a year later I recieved an email regarding a class action lawsuit against buy.com. I opted in of course -----------> about another year later I got a check from buy.com for $50!! So as David said..it DOES happen, and they CAN be held against it...no cites or 2nd hand stories needed for this one....I got a check personally. Pure Crazyness.
------------------
jack of all trades, master of some.
Obviously, you are mistaken. You must have hallucinated the entire experience, as I clearly did mine.
Get off your high horse. I am asserting that advertisers can be held to prices specifically stated in ads. That is true. I have seen it. True got a check because of it. If you want to know why I have a bad attitude about lawyers (aside from the philosophical issue that they do nothing to actually create value, they only fight over what other people have built) then read your posts. I have stated an opinion based on 16 years of creating ads and dealing with the legal intricacies of that business. The opinions of the people that advise me in these matters is based on decades of experience in a specific and very technical field of law, not an opinion based on a sitting in a lecture.
Do they teach classes on hypocrisy at law schools? Your comment on my supposed attitude towards the medical profession is juvenile. Here's a tip - if you are going to pontificate and act superior, you actually have to meet your own professed standards to have any credibility. Jeez.
This is all I have to say about this; I have a very low threshold for crap and I have put up with too much already.
Ya’ll have a nice day.
and we wonder why there are so many lawyer jokes....
my personal opinion(not professional) is that putting any UNINTENDED amount down for a price on the internet is potentially dangerous for the seller. they could be expected to produce the product at that price unless the necessary disclaimers were included(availability/-subject to change/etc). although ridiculous, how many ridiculous lawsuits outside the reasonability standard have resulted in ridiculous awards to ridiculous plaintiffs.
i have a lot of attorneys in my family with a sense of humour so i get the jokes.
heres an old one that has seemed more and more appropriate over time:
"if you put all of the attorneys at the bottom of the ocean, do you know what youd have?
a good start"
my personal opinion(not professional) is that putting any UNINTENDED amount down for a price on the internet is potentially dangerous for the seller. they could be expected to produce the product at that price unless the necessary disclaimers were included(availability/-subject to change/etc). although ridiculous, how many ridiculous lawsuits outside the reasonability standard have resulted in ridiculous awards to ridiculous plaintiffs.
i have a lot of attorneys in my family with a sense of humour so i get the jokes.
heres an old one that has seemed more and more appropriate over time:
"if you put all of the attorneys at the bottom of the ocean, do you know what youd have?
a good start"
It sounds to me like several nsx owners just need to get in their cars and drive. Ah, therapy!
Here are my favorites:
What is the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
.
.
.
.
there are skidmarks in front of the dog!!
Why don’t sharks attack lawyers?
.
.
.
.
.
professional courtesy!
Well, now that the NSX community has a full understanding on this interesting and fun-filled area of contracts law, im gonna take a nice break and get in a much needed therapeutic NSX country drive today!
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004327.html
I think it’s long overdue!!
See ya later
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 02 June 2002).]
What is the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
.
.
.
.
there are skidmarks in front of the dog!!
Why don’t sharks attack lawyers?
.
.
.
.
.
professional courtesy!
Well, now that the NSX community has a full understanding on this interesting and fun-filled area of contracts law, im gonna take a nice break and get in a much needed therapeutic NSX country drive today!
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004327.html
I think it’s long overdue!!
See ya later
[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 02 June 2002).]
I just have to add this here. My 78 year old family friend just had heart surgery. The doctor prescribed medication to be taken by him after the surgery. This medication was $800.00 dollars. My friends insurance does NOT pay for this type of medication. Medications are non-returnable. It was in fact the wrong "crap". The doctor is not liable for writing the wrong prescription. Now my friend, on a fixed income, is out $800.00.
I just have to add this here. My 78 year old family friend just had heart surgery. The doctor prescribed medication to be taken by him after the surgery. This medication was $800.00 dollars. My friends insurance does NOT pay for this type of medication. Medications are non-returnable. It was in fact the wrong "crap". The doctor is not liable for writing the wrong prescription. Now my friend, on a fixed income, is out $800.00.
Just to keep this even further off topic:
This is, of course, second hand information. What exactly is "the wrong crap"... It made him or her sick, it had side effects what was it? Maybe it was the "right crap" and your friend took it the wrong way. The doctor did not set the medication's price. You make it sound as though if it were only $15 it would have been fine. Why isn't your friend mad at his insurance company? After all if they had covered the drug he wouldn't be out any money at all.
Medication is not like motor oil. One drug does not work for every person. It may have been the right medicine but just not for him. Maybe in many other heart patients it works well. Maybe your family friend should have read his insurance company's policy about drug coverage before he signed up. I get constant calls from people complaining about the cost of medications when they opt for the cheapest insurance they can find rather than paying a few extra bucks.
I don't know your friend's circumstances and you may be correct in the assumptions you have made, but I know the majority of these cases that I deal with, as well as the majority of heart conditions, are self-inflicted.
Just to keep this even further off topic:
This is, of course, second hand information. What exactly is "the wrong crap"... It made him or her sick, it had side effects what was it? Maybe it was the "right crap" and your friend took it the wrong way. The doctor did not set the medication's price. You make it sound as though if it were only $15 it would have been fine. Why isn't your friend mad at his insurance company? After all if they had covered the drug he wouldn't be out any money at all.
Medication is not like motor oil. One drug does not work for every person. It may have been the right medicine but just not for him. Maybe in many other heart patients it works well. Maybe your family friend should have read his insurance company's policy about drug coverage before he signed up. I get constant calls from people complaining about the cost of medications when they opt for the cheapest insurance they can find rather than paying a few extra bucks.
I don't know your friend's circumstances and you may be correct in the assumptions you have made, but I know the majority of these cases that I deal with, as well as the majority of heart conditions, are self-inflicted.
Wow, sure did not expect that. I can tell you that I have made NO ASSUMPTIONS HERE. I can tell you that this gentelman is someone I have known for my entire life. He is and has always been a non-drinker, non-smoker, and exercises daily. Self inflicted is not the case here. Maybe sometimes people DO GET heart conditions from just being old. Assuming that his condition is self inflicted is just asinine. What I was trying to say in my earlier response was this: Just because someone spends eight plus years in college (doctor, lawyer, Indian chief) it does not make them invulnerable to mistakes. This doctor made a mistake, he even went as far to apologize for the mistake. Unfortunately that does not put $800 dollars back in my friends pocket. A PhD does not make it impossible for a lawyer to give out wrong information or for a doctor to prescribe the wrong medication. I think NSXTC said "What do those stupid professional people know anyway!". I assumed he was being sarcastic from the tone of his post. I simply wanted to cite a situation were a professional did make a mistake. We are all human and we all make mistakes, degree or no degree. Having a dgree just makes it harder for one to admit a mistake has been made and to take responsibility for it.
[This message has been edited by steveny (edited 02 June 2002).]
Yellow Rose
Suspended
- Joined
- 22 November 2001
- Messages
- 2,256
Just to inform of who is what.....NSXTC *is* a lawyer. If you want to argue tort with him, be prepared.
Similar threads
