Online Vendors and Order Canceling

[Tha Gunslinga]

Helm is crap, anyway; it's not really worth speculating in.  Dan who runs MagicArsenal has a habit of doing things like this; I don't deal with him and haven't for a long time.  I had my own issues with him a long time ago over Transmute Artifacts.

[Samite Healer]

Wow.  There are lot of things on this thread that still shock me, most notably consumer's perspectives and beliefs that they are being gouged, when in fact, they are not.  For the record, I no longer have any affiliation with ANY website or magic company, and no longer have any interest in dealing with Magic cards.  I do, however, know almost every person or company that matters in this industry, as well as many players that I call friends so I am always curious in following what goes on in the community.

Let me explain a few things from an entity's perspective.

Businesses exist to generate profit, but they also provide the world with their services.  I constantly see people on forums blindly bashing one company or another for anything that goes wrong without even seeking resolution of an issue, but nobody ever thinks or talks about with equal passion what these organizations bring to the table.  Sure, plenty of people on here have mentioned what SCG has done for the Vintage community, but only after a negative issue has ensued.  Roll back your clocks 15 years when there were no mail order companies, eBay existed only in someone's mind, and consumers often had to work for themselves to track down rare things that they wanted.  Without these sites, modern Magic would not exist, and these businesses developed out of necessity [and yes, to generate profit].

Think back to when Portal was legalized.  The exact same thing happened with Personal Tutor and Imperial Seal, and people started flipping out.  If a company has 20 Imperial Seals available for sale at $20 and the price suddenly spikes to $200, and 247 people attempt to buy them out, is that not the company being raped?  Obviously the company realized at the same time the consumers did that the price suddenly spiked, and needed to adjust it.  Is it fair and reasonable that every company lose $3600 in potential revenue because a few people clicked their purchase button while the office staff was sleeping?

Here's where the counterarguments come in.

- Well, if they are that concerned about it they shouldn't offer them in the first place.

- They shouldn't put their entire stock up for sale.

- Company X should monitor their prices more closely.

And so on.

Well, if these shops were brick and mortar they WOULD be closed for the night, if anyone wants to be that literal about the scenario and could adjust prices.  It is not reasonable to force companies of this nature, in this industry to have to monitor their prices 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  All these people that think that they are successful in "speculating" and purchasing these cards before they go up actually have no skill at all.  The successful speculative buyer already has 20 of Card X stocked up before Demars even built his deck, just in case. 


**Some companies cancel orders for LEGITIMATE REASONS**

I know for a fact that some companies have terrible software that actually do not remove items from inventory until they are actually shipped.  Cardhaus is an example.  When Garruk Wildspeaker came out they sold about 140 copies of the card within a week and had only 24 or so in stock.  Sure, it sounds retarded and if it were my company I would have a much more sophisticated system.  If I were one of the people that were turned away and refunded because of that system, sure I'd be upset and I probably would complain and not order from then anymore.  That's a different scenario though.  They DID ship out the 24 they had at the price they sold them at, and then raised it accordingly.  To the people that were refunded, it probably looked like they canceled the order simply to make more money, but that wasn't the case.  In fact, when the first batch shipped out at around $12 or so, they paid more than that right afterwards to replace them.

I'm not defending their software system.  I'm simply pointing out that to some people it may have looked like deliberate gouging, but it wasn't.  Sure, you could argue that those people who were refunded were entitled to Garruk at the original price, but give me a break.  There no way Cardhaus should have to track down another 90 Garruk Wildspeakers and sell them all for a loss. 

And yes, I know the other side of the coin too.  People thought they were expecting their playset and needed them for tournaments and so forth, which is a valid argument.  The bottom line?  Don't order from a company like that once you learn, but that's still different than the griping that is going on here.  We're talking about deliberate, intentional price gouging so let's move on.

**Completely selling out of something hurts a business WAY more than the average consumer thinks... A LOT MORE**

Case In Point:  Tarmogoyf!

Tarmogoyf was probably the most expensive and most demanded Type II card in history.  Everyone needed four for almost deck they played, in almost every format.  Cards like Tarmogoyf, and popular items in general, drive so much sales that the price of the item isn't necessarily the issue at hand, and consumers don't realize it. 

Take the Helm of Obedience example someone mentioned above.  It's not about $20 at all if you read between the lines.  Say someone is getting into Type I and needs the following cards for their deck:

- 3 Underground Sea
- 2 Leyline of the Void
- 4 Helm of Obedience
- 1 Mox Jet

Great.  So this guy is building his deck and needs 10 cards to finish his deck, which totals up to approximately $400+ so that he can play it in the tournament next week.  Site X has all the cards but no Helm of Obedience [because they let some guy purchase all 30 of theirs for pennies] and Site Y has everything less an Underground Sea.  Well, since his insane combo deck can't function without his 99 cent Helm of Obediences, he opts to purchase from Site Y.  All of a sudden, it's not about $4 is it?  If this continues to happen with several hot cards, Site Y isn't looking at a loss of profits...they're looking at bankruptcy.

This happened with Tarmogoyf ALL THE TIME.  Sites tossed up Tarmogoyfs as loss leaders just to bring people in to purchase other stuff.  An order for 8 Tarmogoyf got limited to 4 so that everyone was able to get a set of Tarmogoyfs not just your local dealer that bought 30 to price gouge his community on the trading room floor at a PTQ.

Nobody ever talks about this kind of stuff.

This is a crazy rant, so I'll attempt to end it short since it's already long.

**The Bottom Line**

Most of these companies, and people behind them aren't trying to gouge the shit out their customers.  They're trying to make money and do the the rightt thing the vast majority of the time.  For every legitimate guy out there like Rich Shay who tries to buy a playset of something there are 10 more who try to rape the stores and make a quick buck at their expense.

I hold myself to pretty high standards, and I feel that I have always been fair and equitable and provided a valuable service to the community, which I am a part of.  If I attempted to buy out a store of something [which I did with Personal Tutor years ago] and I was limited I'd think "well, I took a shot and I missed."  There are plenty of perspectives on this, and I'm sure someone could attempt to tear this point of view apart.  Why do consumers feel they have a RIGHT to take advantage of stores, and it's always one sided?

/Endrant

/Cast gobacktoplayingWoW

=)

[ReAnimator]

snip

Agree 100%, prices subject to change without notice.

I used to work in a store and things like this happened all the time. For example we had all our commons priced 25¢-$1 (excluding things like bolts etc.) and uncommons at $1-3. Well a guy was flipping through our binder and there was a good uncommon miss priced at 25¢ by someone else and he wanted like 20 of them, i told him that someone made a mistake and the card was actually $2, he started arguing and going on with all these arguments and he just didn't get it even when it was explained that no uncommon was priced under a dollar. Most of the time when things like this happened the person would be cool and just say yeah thought something was wrong, or they wouldn't even want the card they were just being helpful and pointing out that something was mispriced. Sure we got burned on some things but so what we did what we could to protect ourselves.

I think starcity's policy is fine, unlike other websites they don't charge your credit card until the order is processed, which is perfect for protecting themselves from huge price fluctuations and for inventory screw ups. Both of these things have worked in my favor and against me.
When basalt monolith was errataed to work with power artifact i went on their site and got 4 beta monaliths that day for uber cheap, sure it didn't pan out into anything but by the end of the day the price had gone up by $5, i still got them for the cheaper price i paid, i doubt that would have happened if i had bought out their whole stock.

I think keeping multiple people happy with reasonably priced stock and availability makes wayyyy more sense than shipping everything to one guy who is just trying to take advantage and make a quick buck, that guy isn't really a valuable or even repeat customer most of the time.

Like give it a try and if it works out for you great, but don't be surprised if someone gets wise to your game and stops you. At least with online buisiness's you get your money back. I pretty much stopped using ebay because of this. I had about 25 solemn simulacrums coming to me from pre-sale on ebay. When they were pre-sale they were all around a dollar a piece. Well by the time the set went on sale and started shipping they were going for around $6-8 each.
I received 8 of them.
All my sellers had 99%+ feedback, most strung me along for a week or two with "sorry i oversold and need to get more, or yeah i already shipped those" some just flat out told me, "i can afford the negative feed back you aren't getting your cards"
I didn't get any of my money back.

My 2¢

[Anusien]

SamiteHealer: Very very informative post.  I knew some of the stuff you said, but most of it was very enlightening.  Incidentally in my encounter with that site, the first thing I asked was, "Did you have the inventory to cover it?"  As a software guy, I can understand the software broke and oversold.  Some other guy got in there first and bought them out, and they mistakenly offered more than they had.  They literally can't fulfill the contract.  I don't buy your argument about a brick & mortar store being closed for the day.  I think that's the inherent risk you run by being an online store.  Then again, fundamentally I'm a consumer.

I think the reason consumers feel entitled to try and make a buck off stores:
A) They feel like they're always behind.  Stores are continually making a profit off players, and we put up with it because it's a necessary evil.  So we relish a chance to make a profit too.
B) It's big guy versus little guy syndrome.
C) The store is a nameless entity, where the person is real and has a story!

[orgcandman]

snip

snip

Samite, ReAnimator:
  You make some good points. However, at least in Massachusetts, if you list something as in-stock and at a certain price you are bound by law to sell it at this price. Regardless of it's actual street worth or supposed worth by a manufacturer. The point about brick and mortar stores vs. online stores is a good one. It wouldn't be difficult to simply have your site shutdown from time x to time y and refuse to accept orders based on your local time zone. In this case, these companies choose not to do so because of a perceived loss of potential business. Therefore, they are saying that "Yes, we are open 24/7 rain or shine." If a company says it is open 24/7, it is bound by the law 24/7.
  The laws, at least in Massachusetts, favor the consumer. The old "caveat emptor" approach to business doesn't work. It's been historically shown time and time again that if a company is allowed to take advantage of customers, it will. This is why the law favors the consumer. It would be a trivial thing to simply deny orders until your brick and mortar store is available. The fact is, the online shop owners tout about doing business 24/7. They _WANT_ to do business at all hours. If they want to be doing business at all hours of the day, they should be bound by the laws that govern business all hours of the day.
  Why should an online shop be given leniency where an brick and mortar store would likely be called into court? Just because the collectible market is more dynamic than the market for board games and jigsaw puzzles doesn't mean that the rules of business are different. If you say "This is product X, and I'm selling it at price A" you MUST honor that agreement when someone says "I accept your offer"*.
  Anyway, I'm done my silly rant. My words are probably worth less than $.02 when it comes to business law and ethics since I'm neither a business owner, nor a lawyer. I just figured that I'd make sure to bring up that the rule of caveat emptor doesn't really exist, at least in Massachusetts.

*  I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not well versed in business law. Take these statements with somewhat of a grain of salt.

[Moxlotus]

If a company doesn't want somebody buying them out of cards, then a cap should be built into the ordering.  It's that simple.  There are a few situations that might need some explaining (I'm buying you out of ice age islands!), but that can easily be dealt with in the comments section or e-mail.

I'd raise holy hell if I was in a store and my shopping cart had 80 of product X prices at a dollar each and while I was waiting in the checkout line the manager saw me and quick rushed to the price database and increased the price.

You say "well, they can't be fixing their price all the time."  Well, that's one of the downfalls of having a business that deals some sales on the internet.  It's a risk they are willing to take because the benefits (being open when actual brick&mortar only stores aren't) will outweigh the downfalls.  Capitalism is a bitch--can't get everything.

[Apollyon]

snip

snip

Samite, ReAnimator:
  You make some good points. However, at least in Massachusetts, if you list something as in-stock and at a certain price you are bound by law to sell it at this price. Regardless of it's actual street worth or supposed worth by a manufacturer. The point about brick and mortar stores vs. online stores is a good one. It wouldn't be difficult to simply have your site shutdown from time x to time y and refuse to accept orders based on your local time zone. In this case, these companies choose not to do so because of a perceived loss of potential business. Therefore, they are saying that "Yes, we are open 24/7 rain or shine." If a company says it is open 24/7, it is bound by the law 24/7.
  The laws, at least in Massachusetts, favor the consumer. The old "caveat emptor" approach to business doesn't work. It's been historically shown time and time again that if a company is allowed to take advantage of customers, it will. This is why the law favors the consumer. It would be a trivial thing to simply deny orders until your brick and mortar store is available. The fact is, the online shop owners tout about doing business 24/7. They _WANT_ to do business at all hours. If they want to be doing business at all hours of the day, they should be bound by the laws that govern business all hours of the day.
  Why should an online shop be given leniency where an brick and mortar store would likely be called into court? Just because the collectible market is more dynamic than the market for board games and jigsaw puzzles doesn't mean that the rules of business are different. If you say "This is product X, and I'm selling it at price A" you MUST honor that agreement when someone says "I accept your offer"*.
  Anyway, I'm done my silly rant. My words are probably worth less than $.02 when it comes to business law and ethics since I'm neither a business owner, nor a lawyer. I just figured that I'd make sure to bring up that the rule of caveat emptor doesn't really exist, at least in Massachusetts.

*  I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not well versed in business law. Take these statements with somewhat of a grain of salt.

While I'm not a lawyer either, a discussion with a lawyer into contract law here in MA indicates that a contract requires both parties to agree without duress as to the conditions of some transaction. When you place an order for X cards at Y price, you mutually agree to that exchange. The next step is for some exchange of goods, be it money or barter. I'm not sure exactly how banking law treats credit cards, but I'd assume that they are similar to checks, in that upon handing someone a credit card number that you fulfill your contractual obligation. A contract isn't official until there is some exchange, but once at least one party has some considerations, the contract is final, and all modifications must be mutually agreed-upon.

If the software sells too many cards because it doesn't have live inventory, invest in better software. Or schedule "routine downtime" whenever something big is going to come out, such as a new set or an announcement.

"We might have to fulfill our contracts and lose money or make less money!" is no excuse for bait-and-switch tactics.

[Beatdown]

what do you guys think helm might go to?

Please don't ask questions that have nothing at all to do with the topic.

Rich

[Myriad Games]

Very interesting conversation. Without pontificating overly much on this subject, I'll simply point out that the core issue of concern here is the disparate value of the items and the speculation about future value. Pricing policies and terms of service are a normal part of business transactions and are legal and enforceable. While policies may be suspect in their balance of power, adhering to policies that is not illegal nor unethical. Neither party should take advantage of the other in any transaction, as the short-term benefits gained are far overwhelmed by the long-term negative repercussions.

[TracerBullet]

Very interesting conversation. Without pontificating overly much on this subject, I'll simply point out that the core issue of concern here is the disparate value of the items and the speculation about future value. Pricing policies and terms of service are a normal part of business transactions and are legal and enforceable. While policies may be suspect in their balance of power, adhering to policies that is not illegal nor unethical. Neither party should take advantage of the other in any transaction, as the short-term benefits gained are far overwhelmed by the long-term negative repercussions.

See, Myriad, I rather disagree that the issue at hand is who gets to make the money - The issue is what constitutes a contract and is ethical/legal for a contract to be nullified if and when new information becomes available.  I'm wholeheartedly of the belief that an agreement to sell a good at a given price constitutes a contract to trade the goods/services, as explained by Apollyon two posts above me.  If that is the case, a seller should never be allowed to falsely advertise their goods (saying they have more than they do or saying that they're at a lower price than they are) and the onus to prevent this false advertisement from happening falls on the seller.  If that entails getting better software, not accepting online orders, or only accepting online orders during certain hours, so be it. 

I personally think the best solution for the sellers in these situations is to simply put a disclaimer like "All transactions are subject to managerial review between xx:00 and xx:00 EST" and not charge the credit cards until they have been reviewed and accepted.  This way, the buyer is made aware that their transaction is not accepted until someone actually looks at the products and price.

[andrewpate]

As a law school student, I cannot dispense any actual legal advice on this.  But could one of the several attorneys on the site offer some commentary?  I'm talking specifically about whether provision of credit card information on the assumption that a charge will be made constitutes sufficient consideration for an enforceable contract per the Restatement.  That could clear this up for everyone in a hurry.

[Myriad Games]

Thanks for the reply, Tracer. We agree that contracts entered into should be kept. Usually the terms of service of a site will include a disclaimer like the one you suggest, stating that prices are subject to change at anytime and that the seller is not responsible for typographical errors (say entering $10 rather than $100 for a card). That's not exactly the situation here, but the principle of accepting the terms of service is still valid.

[Godder]

As someone said, invest in better software. If selling lots of a particular card in one order is a problem (and it will only be a problem if the card is suddenly good), state in the terms and conditions of sale that the maximum order for any one card is 4 of that card (or whatever seems suitable for the site's normal operations) and implement it in the software. If there are any exceptions to that, say so (but probably only basic and snow lands, and perhaps Relentless Rats for more than 4; cards restricted in Vintage might be limited to 1 or 2). Disclaimers along the lines of "we reserve the right to change anything about any order placed with us" are likely too wide to be legal because they are effectively an attempt to opt out of consumer law, which is often mentioned in the law as not allowed.

[orgcandman]

Thanks for the reply, Tracer. We agree that contracts entered into should be kept. Usually the terms of service of a site will include a disclaimer like the one you suggest, stating that prices are subject to change at anytime and that the seller is not responsible for typographical errors (say entering $10 rather than $100 for a card). That's not exactly the situation here, but the principle of accepting the terms of service is still valid.

With all due respect, a disclaimer that just states "Prices are subject to change at any time" seems to me like a way of trying to justify "We're gonna cancel your order because we think we can bleed you for more money." Everyone knows that prices are subject to change. The vendor can simply say "Oh, today all Portents are $500.00" and be done with it. A disclaimer saying that prices could change is akin to a disclaimer saying "This transaction uses electricity."
If they had a disclaimer that said "Transactions between X and Y <insert time zone> will not be processed until the following business day" and enforced that by not processing transactions, then no one would have any gripes when their attempts to make a fast buck at all hours of the night didn't pay off.

As far as saying "We won't be responsible for mispricing our items," I find that excuse bogus. It's illegal in Massachusetts to say "Oh, even though that says it's $20 it's really $200 so pay up." If you mark an item for a price in your store, and someone brings it to the counter before you've had the chance to correct it: you've lost money. I don't know what other state laws (or even federal laws) have for legislation on the matter. I also don't think it's possible for a sales agent to "misprice" their items. Meaning that there's no law that says you have to sell a product at a particular price. You could sell everything in stock for a penny and make a huge loss. There's no law that says "You must sell at the MSRP." That's why it's a SUGGESTED price. Otherwise, it would be price fixing.

Anyway, that's my understanding on the matters. Again, as I've stated as much as I can, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps a lawyer who is able to comment on these matters might be able to chime in (but I doubt you'll find a lawyer who can make a statement on this matter).

-Aaron

[Grand Inquisitor]

There are a few things in this thread that don't past muster.

Neither party should take advantage of the other in any transaction, as the short-term benefits gained are far overwhelmed by the long-term negative repercussions.

This is a sentiment I happen to like.  I also want to mention that I'm not a free-market blow hard, and I do value pluralistic elements (re: social) of the market, but...

Has anyone else noticed this pattern with the above stories:

TMD Guy - "Store X didn't follow through when I bought cards from them"
TMD Observers - "I'll never do biz with these guys again!" and maybe "These guys are usually legit, what gives?"
<time passes>
TMD Guy - "I talked to the guy and he was pretty cool; my full faith in their enterprise is restored"

I'm not buying.  I don't doubt that once SCG realized one of their practices impacted the ineffable Rich Shay, Peter becomes an endearing and community focused businessman.  I've never met Peter, but I bet he's a great guy.  I have met Rich and he's really nice.

That's not what we're talking about here.  We are talking about online stores that deal in high-volume, faceless transactions.  Regardless of their size or profitability, they all play the game the same: buy low, sell high.  I wouldn't expect any different from them, this principle is what allows them and us (card purchasers) to keep on spinning.

Whether or not they care about the T1 community, or whether TMD Guy was trying to corner the market on Painter's Servant is irrelevent.  Sellers have practices which help ensure their survival.  Some are legal, some are quasi-legal, and some are illegal calculated choices.  The question is to what extent this behavior effects the long term relationship between buyer and seller.  Again, while I like Dan's sentiment, the part about long-term negative repercussions obviously isn't working.  Otherwise, why do people like Rich keep bringing up these stories?  Also, how many people that aren't Rich Shay does this happen to with different end results?

Caveat emptor indeed.

[MadManiac21]

Thanks for the reply, Tracer. We agree that contracts entered into should be kept. Usually the terms of service of a site will include a disclaimer like the one you suggest, stating that prices are subject to change at anytime and that the seller is not responsible for typographical errors (say entering $10 rather than $100 for a card).

This is pretty preposterous and is not supported by any legislation; in fact the opposite clearly is.

By listing a product on your online site at $x.xx you MUST sell that product at that price if person A fills out an order form, and it is processed correctly, etc.

If all of a sudden the next day that card jumps 100x in value, you're telling me you are going to try to defend your right to no longer sell that product? Have fun in court, you'll lose horribly.

There is plenty of business regulation and precedent on this matter, google is your friend. Listing an item on your online store is no different than in a retail store (for leymans terms purposes); you cannot suddenly change the price of the product once I am at the checkout counter.

Neither party should take advantage of the other in any transaction, as the short-term benefits gained are far overwhelmed by the long-term negative repercussions.

Lol at this. You would be beyond hard pressed to make a profit in any business if you were always dealing with fair and equitable trade decisions.

The fact that any of these online stores has done this in the past means I will never do business with them, period. The simple fact that they helped out Rich Shay is even more revealing, as they are giving special treatment to special people. Big no-no.

[Dante]

This is pretty preposterous and is not supported by any legislation; in fact the opposite clearly is.

By listing a product on your online site at $x.xx you MUST sell that product at that price if person A fills out an order form, and it is processed correctly, etc.

There is plenty of business regulation and precedent on this matter, google is your friend. Listing an item on your online store is no different than in a retail store (for leymans terms purposes); you cannot suddenly change the price of the product once I am at the checkout counter.

Grocery Stores do this all the time - an add in the paper is misprinted (instead of buy 2 get 2 free it says buy 2 get 20 free, or something like a misplaced decimal point) and they have signs at the checkout counter advising people the ad was misprinted and showing the intended price/sale.

[TracerBullet]

Grocery Stores do this all the time - an add in the paper is misprinted (instead of buy 2 get 2 free it says buy 2 get 20 free, or something like a misplaced decimal point) and they have signs at the checkout counter advising people the ad was misprinted and showing the intended price/sale.

But that's done before the transaction takes place- You can see the sign at the register before you agree to make the purchase.  The difference here is that the agreement to buy the cards is made on completion of the online purchase form (you usually even get a transaction record/receipt) AND THEN notice is given of the price/quantity change.

[Dante]

Grocery Stores do this all the time - an add in the paper is misprinted (instead of buy 2 get 2 free it says buy 2 get 20 free, or something like a misplaced decimal point) and they have signs at the checkout counter advising people the ad was misprinted and showing the intended price/sale.

But that's done before the transaction takes place- You can see the sign at the register before you agree to make the purchase.  The difference here is that the agreement to buy the cards is made on completion of the online purchase form (you usually even get a transaction record/receipt) AND THEN notice is given of the price/quantity change.

Yes, but the transaction hasn't been completed - you haven't taken ownership of the product yet.

This sort of thing happens all the time (or can) with technology hardware distributors.  My company sells Cisco products.  We can look online at our distributors inventory that is more or less real time.  Let's say Ingram Micro (one of our distributors) has 452 Cisco 2811 routers in stock.  We could place an order online for all of them and even "pay" for them (we have a big line of credit).  But the fact of the matter is that Ingram Micro will never let that whole order go through, regardless of the fact that we "ordered and paid" for them, because it would be so detrimental to their business with their other 1000's of customers who routinely need to purchase that product (because it would drive those customers to competing distributors).  And there isn't a vendor alive who would try and complain about it being unfair that they couldn't purchase Ingram Micro's entire national stock of Cisco 2811 routers, even though they were "ordered and paid for", much less try and involve anything legal.  Talking to our Ingram Micro rep, he's told us about times where customers tried to grab all of a particular type of product (even in a bunch of orders, being more devious), it happens about once per month or so (at least the point that he was aware of).

So I can see vendors retroactively limiting the quantity of an order or item if there would be a significant risk to the business that would drive its clients/customers elsewhere because it happens or can happen all the time in other industries.

That being said, limiting the quantity to 0 (e.g. canceling the order completely) is crap because 1 is the minimum you can order.

[ReAnimator]

Yes, but the transaction hasn't been completed - you haven't taken ownership of the product yet.
Snip

I was going to say this but way less eloquently.
The transaction has never taken place, that's why lots of place do irl credit card processing (like SCG)

also all the people bandy about, 'that wouldn't hold up in court'
good luck going to court over anything under a couple hundred dollars, have fun wasting your money for the principal of the thing, this is ridiculous and you know it.
Also if the credit card gets charged right away (like pay pal etc) i would look and see if under pay pals policies what the seller is doing is actually against their terms, then maybe you could lean on a store cause you could get them in trouble with that company, however refunding a purchase for whatever reason is probably with in the terms of acceptable use, regardless if it is fair in your mind.

[Shock Wave]

also all the people bandy about, 'that wouldn't hold up in court' good luck going to court over anything under a couple hundred dollars, have fun wasting your money for the principal of the thing, this is ridiculous and you know it.

What is ridiculous about prosecuting a person/business who treats you unfairly? It's only a waste of your time/money if you actually lose the case, otherwise you can include compensation for your time/lawyer fees in the amount you're suing for.

If I felt a business had treated me unfairly (and the circumstances were comparable), I would likely just spread the word that they are not reputable and unlikely to uphold agreements with their customers when their money is at stake. However, there's nothing ridiculous about the reasoning behind taking this issue to court. The fact that it just is not worth it for some people does not make the endeavour of prosecuting someone who reneges on a business agreement any more or less reasonable. If someone decides to take these stores to court over this issue, I would be happy to see it. I'm my opinion, it's a slimy, dishonest, manipulative, cutthroat way to do business.

Also if the credit card gets charged right away (like pay pal etc) i would look and see if under pay pals policies what the seller is doing is actually against their terms, then maybe you could lean on a store cause you could get them in trouble with that company, however refunding a purchase for whatever reason is probably with in the terms of acceptable use, regardless if it is fair in your mind.

Just because the the fine print of the "terms and conditions" makes it acceptable, that does not mean that it is logically fair. I guarantee you that if these stores put a sign in front of their checkouts that said in big, bold print "We reserve the right to change our prices while you are in line for whatever reason. In addition, even if you have paid for a product, unless it is in your physical possession, it is property of the store.", these stores would lose a ton of business. Who want to do business with someone like that? That is absolutely absurd. This sounds like a Marvin tactic, where a business preys on the ignorance of their customers (since customers intuitively expect businesses to honour completed transactions) to try to milk them for every penny.

What happened to integrity!?

[Tha Gunslinga]

good luck going to court over anything under a couple hundred dollars, have fun wasting your money for the principal of the thing, this is ridiculous and you know it.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with small claims court, which exists specifically to handle cases such as this.

[mike_bergeron]

Thanks for the reply, Tracer. We agree that contracts entered into should be kept. Usually the terms of service of a site will include a disclaimer like the one you suggest, stating that prices are subject to change at anytime and that the seller is not responsible for typographical errors (say entering $10 rather than $100 for a card).

This is pretty preposterous and is not supported by any legislation; in fact the opposite clearly is.

By listing a product on your online site at $x.xx you MUST sell that product at that price if person A fills out an order form, and it is processed correctly, etc.

If all of a sudden the next day that card jumps 100x in value, you're telling me you are going to try to defend your right to no longer sell that product? Have fun in court, you'll lose horribly.

There is plenty of business regulation and precedent on this matter, google is your friend. Listing an item on your online store is no different than in a retail store (for leymans terms purposes); you cannot suddenly change the price of the product once I am at the checkout counter.

Neither party should take advantage of the other in any transaction, as the short-term benefits gained are far overwhelmed by the long-term negative repercussions.

Lol at this. You would be beyond hard pressed to make a profit in any business if you were always dealing with fair and equitable trade decisions.

The fact that any of these online stores has done this in the past means I will never do business with them, period. The simple fact that they helped out Rich Shay is even more revealing, as they are giving special treatment to special people. Big no-no.

If the terms of service of a website are specific enough in nature to do it, then they can.  By listing a product it is an offer, not a binding contract. Prices can change at any time the vendor chooses before the product is delivered.  There is specific case law on this, but I am not an attorney and do not feel like doing homework for something I couldn't care less about. If I was going to randomly try to take cheap shots at people online, I would at least check the law.  By making an offer to purchase and sending funds, you agree to the terms and conditions. Trying to prove that a companies terms and conditions are either deceitful or unfair would be very difficult if you agree to them in the first place.

Secondly, trying to say that Pete is giving special treatment to individual customers is absolutely insane.  Anyone who would approach him in a professional manner with a complaint would gain access to the same level of courtesy.  Just because Rich was contacted on a thread does not mean Pete would not contact anyone who called or e-mailed him personally. 

And lastly trying to take sentences other users write about fair trade and compensation, and long standing consumer relationships, and simply add a trolling line that has no merit or value is basically the perfect way to always get ignored.  I could give you thousands of examples to explain that sentence to you, but it is not worth my time reading your comments.  Just because you do not have a grasp on business practices does not mean you get to demean other people who do.  Grow up.

Reading this thread, and how it has been allowed to continue in this form is awful.  If people want to play the stock market with Magic cards, go ahead.  When you get burned, don't cry to anyone else, you are forcing the system to burn you.  When they adapt to be able to rescind their offer, deal with it.  If this is your source of income, I apologize for sounding harsh, but this is not a regulated market, and you really have zero protection. 

CHAPTER 93A. REGULATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES FOR CONSUMERS PROTECTION

Chapter 93A: Section 9. Civil actions and remedies; class action; demand for relief; damages; costs; exhausting administrative remedies

Section 9. (1) Any person, other than a person entitled to bring action under section eleven of this chapter, who has been injured by another person’s use or employment of any method, act or practice declared to be unlawful by section two or any rule or regulation issued thereunder or any person whose rights are affected by another person violating the provisions of clause (9) of section three of chapter one hundred and seventy-six D may bring an action in the superior court, or in the housing court as provided in section three of chapter one hundred and eighty-five C whether by way of original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party action, for damages and such equitable relief, including an injunction, as the court deems to be necessary and proper.

(2) Any persons entitled to bring such action may, if the use or employment of the unfair or deceptive act or practice has caused similar injury to numerous other persons similarly situated and if the court finds in a preliminary hearing that he adequately and fairly represents such other persons, bring the action on behalf of himself and such other similarly injured and situated persons; the court shall require that notice of such action be given to unnamed petitioners in the most effective practicable manner. Such action shall not be dismissed, settled or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of any proposed dismissal, settlement or compromise shall be given to all members of the class of petitioners in such manner as the court directs.

(3) At least thirty days prior to the filing of any such action, a written demand for relief, identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive act or practice relied upon and the injury suffered, shall be mailed or delivered to any prospective respondent. Any person receiving such a demand for relief who, within thirty days of the mailing or delivery of the demand for relief, makes a written tender of settlement which is rejected by the claimant may, in any subsequent action, file the written tender and an affidavit concerning its rejection and thereby limit any recovery to the relief tendered if the court finds that the relief tendered was reasonable in relation to the injury actually suffered by the petitioner. In all other cases, if the court finds for the petitioner, recovery shall be in the amount of actual damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is greater; or up to three but not less than two times such amount if the court finds that the use or employment of the act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of said section two or that the refusal to grant relief upon demand was made in bad faith with knowledge or reason to know that the act or practice complained of violated said section two. For the purposes of this chapter, the amount of actual damages to be multiplied by the court shall be the amount of the judgment on all claims arising out of the same and underlying transaction or occurrence, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage available in payment of the claim. In addition, the court shall award such other equitable relief, including an injunction, as it deems to be necessary and proper. The demand requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if the claim is asserted by way of counterclaim or cross-claim, or if the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business or does not keep assets within the commonwealth, but such respondent may otherwise employ the provisions of this section by making a written offer of relief and paying the rejected tender into court as soon as practicable after receiving notice of an action commenced under this section. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, if the court finds any method, act or practice unlawful with regard to any security or any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery as defined in section two, and if the court finds for the petitioner, recovery shall be in the amount of actual damages.

(3A) A person may assert a claim under this section in a district court, whether by way of original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party action, for money damages only. Said damages may include double or treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, as herein provided. The demand requirements and provision for tender of offer of settlement provided in paragraph (3) shall also be applicable under this paragraph, except that no rights to equitable relief shall be created under this paragraph, nor shall a person asserting a claim hereunder be able to assert any claim on behalf of other similarly injured and situated persons as provided in paragraph (2).

(4) If the court finds in any action commenced hereunder that there has been a violation of section two, the petitioner shall, in addition to other relief provided for by this section and irrespective of the amount in controversy, be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with said action; provided, however, the court shall deny recovery of attorney’s fees and costs which are incurred after the rejection of a reasonable written offer of settlement made within thirty days of the mailing or delivery of the written demand for relief required by this section.

[There is no paragraph (5).]

(6) Any person entitled to bring an action under this section shall not be required to initiate, pursue or exhaust any remedy established by any regulation, administrative procedure, local, state or federal law or statute or the common law in order to bring an action under this section or to obtain injunctive relief or recover damages or attorney’s fees or costs or other relief as provided in this section. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall not be a defense to any proceeding under this section, except as provided in paragraph seven.

(7) The court may upon motion by the respondent before the time for answering and after a hearing suspend proceedings brought under this section to permit the respondent to initiate action in which the petitioner shall be named a party before any appropriate regulatory board or officer providing adjudicatory hearings to complainants if the respondent’s evidence indicates that:

(a) there is a substantial likelihood that final action by the court favorable to the petitioner would require of the respondent conduct or practices that would disrupt or be inconsistent with a regulatory scheme that regulates or covers the actions or transactions complained of by the petitioner established and administered under law by any state or federal regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth or of the United States; or

(b) that said regulatory board or officer has a substantial interest in reviewing said transactions or actions prior to judicial action under this chapter and that the said regulatory board or officer has the power to provide substantially the relief sought by the petitioner and the class, if any, which the petitioner represents, under this section.

Upon suspending proceedings under this section the court may enter any interlocutory or temporary orders it deems necessary and proper pending final action by the regulatory board or officer and trial, if any, in the court, including issuance of injunctions, certification of a class, and orders concerning the presentation of the matter to the regulatory board or officer. The court shall issue appropriate interlocutory orders, decrees and injunctions to preserve the status quo between the parties pending final action by the regulatory board or officer and trial and shall stay all proceedings in any court or before any regulatory board or officer in which petitioner and respondent are necessarily involved. The court may issue further orders, injunctions or other relief while the matter is before the regulatory board or officer and shall terminate the suspension and bring the matter forward for trial if it finds (a) that proceedings before the regulatory board or officer are unreasonably delayed or otherwise unreasonably prejudicial to the interests of a party before the court, or (b) that the regulatory board or officer has not taken final action within six months of the beginning of the order suspending proceedings under this chapter.

(8) Except as provided in section ten, recovering or failing to recover an award of damages or other relief in any administrative or judicial proceeding, except proceedings authorized by this section, by any person entitled to bring an action under this section, shall not constitute a bar to, or limitation upon relief authorized by this section.

Bolded- Mass only. Everyone else has their own laws.  Also, since you are mostly buying from online sites, you should review their own laws and regulations, and become familiar with them if you are truly concerned. 

Edit: updated- Thanks DA. Told you I was not an Attorney, not even a Demonic one.

[Anusien]

Grocery Stores do this all the time - an add in the paper is misprinted (instead of buy 2 get 2 free it says buy 2 get 20 free, or something like a misplaced decimal point) and they have signs at the checkout counter advising people the ad was misprinted and showing the intended price/sale.

I've been reading about this on the blogs of various lawyers and consumer activists.  Laws vary by state and even country, but in some places there are two types of things.  One is an obvious misprint ($1.00 instead of $100), and the other is a mistake ($399 instead of $499).  In those cases, #1 can be taken back, but not #2.

[LotusHead]

Reading this thread, and how it has been allowed to continue in this form is awful.  If people want to play the stock market with Magic cards, go ahead.  When you get burned, don't cry to anyone else, you are forcing the system to burn you.  When they adapt to be able to rescind their offer, deal with it.  If this is your source of income, I apologize for sounding harsh, but this is not a regulated market, and you really have zero protection. 

I barely trade/buy/sell in person, and have zero eBay experience, but this thread is a fascinating read.

I support the "just sell a playset" mentality of dealing with newly hot cards, but I appreciate everyone's input here!

[TracerBullet]

I think it's important for all involved to realize that we're discussing two parallel issues- The legality of offering goods at a different quantity/price than you can fill, and the morality of offering goods at a different quantity/price than you can fill.  It seems like Mike has resolved the legal question for most situations - long story short, you're screwed.  As he says -

Prices can change at any time the vendor chooses before the product is delivered.

If you accept his credentials and credibility as a lawyer, then that statement should put the legal issue to rest.  I'm a tiny bit unsettled by seeming closeness of him and Pete (in him making conjecture as to how Pete would react if the complainant weren't Rich Shay), but I take him at his word.

Reading this thread, and how it has been allowed to continue in this form is awful.  If people want to play the stock market with Magic cards, go ahead.  When you get burned, don't cry to anyone else, you are forcing the system to burn you.  When they adapt to be able to rescind their offer, deal with it.  If this is your source of income, I apologize for sounding harsh, but this is not a regulated market, and you really have zero protection.

While us trying to continue the answer to the legal question may be fruitless, I think as a small community of consumers, TMD readers have the right and the obligation set our own moral standard.  It's important for us as a community to debate these issues, to see what we think are acceptable business practices and how we intend to handle businesses who don't abide by these standards.  If a seller were consistently changing their prices in the manner seen above, I know I personally wouldn't go to that seller.  It's important to me to encourage sellers that I believe act in an ethically positive way, and by essentially pulling a bait-and-switch (If it's consistent, it doesn't matter to me if it was unintentional - the end result is the same), I believe these sellers acted in an unethical way.

Now, another point-

The simple fact that they helped out Rich Shay is even more revealing, as they are giving special treatment to special people. Big no-no.

I disagree.  That a special person receieved the PROPER treatment doesn't mean that the treatment only occurred because he was special.  If you have any specific evidence to the contrary, that may change the matter, but in lieu of it, that's an unjustified conclusion to make.




Now, ALL that being said, it seems as though everyone who had an issue with this has had the issue resolved.  I'm happy to see that and to me, it means I've no qualm buying from SCG the next time I need cards.

[mike_bergeron]

snip

Tracer- like I said before, I am not an attorney nor do I know Pete, I have never even talked to the guy. This is my opinion backed up by some clear facts.  An attorney could come here and wreck my argument, and I would be happy to hear them out.  There is a clear difference between an offer and a sale though.  Some of the people here are complaining of not being able to buy a card after its value has gone up, for the original low price. 

Speaking of the moral issue, what right does the consumer have to rip off the dealer? It seems like this discussion has only been around individual consumers getting "screwed" in a deal, what about the business? Oh i forgot, screw the business, they are faceless zombie leeches on your fun.

I agree that everyone has the right to set your own moral compass- but I think this discussion has become completely worthless when people come in here, attack the credibility of business they have never spoken to, and demand that they should always be able to receive one sided deals.  may you all never venture into the stock market...

Edit: If you are unhappy with certain business tactics or rules, stop buying from that vendor.  This one sentence can completely encompass this entire thread.  The business ethics portion of the argument will most likely spin out of control faster than a politics/religion thread. 

[Anusien]

Prices can change at any time the vendor chooses before the product is delivered.

If you accept his credentials and credibility as a lawyer, then that statement should put the legal issue to rest.

IANAL, but I looked up contract law for Texas.  If you accept the online order as a contract (which seems reasonable), then this is most certainly breach of contract.

[TracerBullet]

Speaking of the moral issue, what right does the consumer have to rip off the dealer? It seems like this discussion has only been around individual consumers getting "screwed" in a deal, what about the business? Oh i forgot, screw the business, they are faceless zombie leeches on your fun.

Mike, I would feel bad for the businesses in this discussion, excepting the fact that they made the first offer here.  They offered to sell cards that they either didn't have or didn't want to sell, and then reneged on the agreement when they felt they could get a better deal.  This is not ethical.  Imagine falling out of escrow on a home because the seller thought they could get a better price - not only am I fairly certain it's illegal in most places, but I'm also SURE it would be considered unethical by the vast majority of buyers present.  That the seller is selling their goods for less money than they believe they could doesn't make it a rip off, and doesn't make them the victim.[/B]  The business of business is business, yes, but as has been said many times, these were short sighted decisions by the sellers (at the outset- they've made right as far as I can tell). 

You can choose to react to these non-sales however you want; I for one am happy that someone called this to my attention, in a thoughtful and enlightening way, and I'm happy that the forum admins saw that this was a worthwhile discussion to have as a community.

[mike_bergeron]

I only replied to this thread because people started taking pot shots for no reason, without an understanding of the business practices they were trolling about.  If someone has an issue with a companies policies, go ahead and post them, however posting to smear a companies image without even speaking to the owner/operator is absolutely insane.  Posting in the thread without doing your own due diligence to solve an issue is the part of the problem itself. 

As far as your example about home escrow, you are comparing a regulated market with an unregulated market.  Also, you are skipping the entire negotiation process in homebuying, which to me is the better example.  If you advertise your house at $200,000 in the paper, but the market goes up overnight(only been going down recently) are you required to sell your house for $200,000 to the first buyer? Of course not. But they Offered it!!! Doesn't matter, common sense overruled you, and you do not take a huge loss.  You would sift through the offers to find one that meets your needs.  In these examples, the online stores had goods that went up in value dramatically, and they responded.  Did the respond correctly? usually not. Did the customer come away happy? usually not.

However, they were buying and selling entire lots of cards for the sole purpose of gaining on that individual transaction.  Whether you agree the practice is fine or not, it is hard to cry wolf when you are trying to take advantage of the same system you are complaining about.