Connect3D (out of business) rebates NOT getting fulfilled for Buy.com Connect3D 1Gb/2Gb SD Cards

calvinandhobbes said: sparky672 said: If you can't comprehend the huge difference between saying a specific act could fit the definition of criminal fraud depending on what was intended and actually declaring they committed a criminal act, then no one can help you.so if your neighbor started a very public discussion about how he believes you might be a child molester because of something he thinks is going on, there's no harm, since it's just a discussion and not a court proceeding?

If he really did molest a child and have prove for it then it's an information and no harm to him since it's true and the neighboor just open up a discussion. However, if the neighboor has no prove that he molest a child but started a very public discussion then it's called "false accusation" or "defamation" and the neighboor can be charged based on that crime.

ANOTHER ONE TO VOTE RED.

sparky672 said: calvinandhobbes said: so if your neighbor started a very public discussion about how he believes you might be a child molester because of something he thinks is going on, there's no harm, since it's just a discussion and not a court proceeding?

-> "IF Joe Smith is inappropriately touching the children, then he might be a molester"

vs.

-> "Joe Smith might be a molester."


You still don't see any difference?yes, i see the difference, mine was the first type, NOT the second. again, would you have a problem with the very public discussion? you've stated no proof is needed since it's just a discussion, not a court of law? or could it be that responsible people may try to have a clue what happened rather than just guessing, and also not just guessing what really constitutes the crime rather than hiding behind "might"?

my whole point in this is that there is a huge difference between:

"You might want to be careful purchasing from buy. com because they promised me a refund, and they didn't deliver"

and

"You might want to be careful purchasing from buy. com because they promised me a refund, and they didn't deliver, and that might be a crime."

citing potential criminal action is far more potentially harmful to a person or company rather than just stating what happened and letting people decide moral right/wrong for themselves. I had decided for myself (siding with the boycott FYI) based on my opinion their actions. if all the facts come out and they were perfectly within their rights in all this, the crime statement may have wrongly harmed them. However, people's own decisions on how they acted based on facts are independent of whether they were in their legal rights or not.

(note, i am not saying you don't have the right to say what you are, i'm just calling it irresponsible).

cme4oil said: Don't forget to RED this one too.

Red this too

RED RED RED

ignoring = proof of intent to defraud? wow, you get funnier each post.

they sent me the refund email, of course mine said they were issuing a refund.....pending approval. even if manager A gives approval, what's to say his/her manager, B, can't say "nope, that's a mistake, overruled."? courts have ruled that price errors on websites/catalogs are not enforcable, regardless of an agreed upon sale, if it can be shown to be a mistake (ie, not intentional). that jump to fraud you keep making is a rather large one, especially given they are suing to try to recover funds to pay. if it was pretty obvious, i could see the statement, but i don't think it's straightforward at all. there are so many unknowns.

shawn, "Buy.con along with their counterparts did NOT make good on an ADVERTISED REBATE. How hard is that to understand? "

let me fix that....

"Connect3D did NOT make good on an ADVERTISED REBATE. How hard is that to understand?"

there we go. you don't care what they have to do to get the money back? funny, the court system, business community, etc, etc seem to care what they have to do.

cme4oil said: cme4oil said: Don't forget to RED this one too.

Red this too

RED RED RED

We're right, your wrong... end of story

BTW - This needs your attention too - Red attention that is.

I came across this lawyer soliciting information on consumer action web site.

July 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I am Northern California class action attorney investigating the Connect3d rebate problems. If you have any information to share with me, please contact me at pfredman@braytonlaw.com, or call me at 415-898-1555 x364. Thanks. Peter.

His law firm.
His staff page.

P.S. I see that he's posted already to another FW thread.

Mod, is being funny... disable my thread rating capability.

So someone in another thread said:

Called Buy.com today and customer service said they will investigate and honor the $50 rebate if you know the order # that was honored the rebate. So PLEASE pass on your order number for those of you that received your $50 rebate from Buy.com for the Connect 3D 2GB card so the rest of us can call and hopefully receive it too.

Can someone post an order number that DID get a refund for the $50 from Buy.com?

MRW2276 said: The funny thing about this all. Is I haven't bought a thing from Buy.com in months now (I don't even read Buy.com's deal emails they send every day anymore). Over that same time I discovered frys.com and love them. Frys must of made $1000 off me in under 6 weeks all ready. Guess the 50 rebate was worth losing a ton of customers like me huh buy? Wait I mean bye.

yes you logic is perfect.

They never had you as a customer, so how could they loss you?

calvinandhobbes said: sparky672 said: If a company sent you a letter with a promise to pay in response to your complaint and never paid you, you'd win that amount in any court.Easy to say that, hard to show. Weren't you the one complaining about me making sweeping generalizations? What if the company is bankrupt?
Bankruptcy does not void the obligation. Just changes the amount you might collect.

 


calvinandhobbes said: What if, like in this case, they are acting as a middle man to provide a rebate they aren't responsible for, but the company they are acting for fails to pay and they have to sue to get the money?
They promised to give you a "refund" - those circumstances are extraneous to you, beyond your control, and not your problem. Welcome to big business where sometimes companies make mistakes but are stuck with the consequences of their actions. Yes, hard for some to believe, but companies are responsible for what they tell their customers.

 


calvinandhobbes said: What if the contract was given by someone unauthorized to give such a contract?
Not your problem. The employee was an acting agent of the corporation.

 


calvinandhobbes said: While none of those blanketly void the contract, they certainly can put them in doubt.
So now you admit that was a contract? Yes, it may be more trouble than it's worth to collect but it doesn't change that fact that you are holding a binding contract.

 


calvinandhobbes said: how's the chinese coming?
Some people act like I've been speaking Chinese all along.

calvinandhobbes said: sparky672 said: calvinandhobbes said: What if the contract was given by someone unauthorized to give such a contract?Not your problem. The employee was an acting agent of the corporation.100% wrong. If the janitor at a Ford factory walks into GM and says I'll sell you Ford's factory for $1, signs a contract, and leaves with a $1, GM does not own the Ford factory, no matter how good GM's lawyers are.

I thought you cared about accuracy.

"Any/All employees always act as agents of the corporation in all locations and scenarios."

DOES NOT EQUAL what I said...

"The employee was an acting agent of the corporation."

The employee was directly addressing an issue within his official capacity as a CSR, therefore acting as an agent of the company.

Furthermore, since more than one customer received identical "form" emails promising a full refund, the issue of establishing him as an agent may be moot. If the emails are traced back to several different CSRs, then there was likely a policy in place to issue refunds which seems to have been revoked before all those refunds were finalized.

michal1980 said: ...
And NO one, Not one of you boycott freaks have shown WHY Buy.com should be responsible for the actions of a thrid party.

I hope you never knew anyone that you thought was a good person, told someone else about them, and it turned out they weren't so good. Because that someone else should come after you know and hold you responsible for that persons actions.

Since you asked for one of the "freaks" to respond, here ya go (once again, by the way, since this has all been discussed before):

From a customer service perspective, Buy.con should cover the rebate to keep its customers satisfied. Office Depot and Newegg both covered Connect3D rebates for the products they sold. That is good customer service. Buy.con did not cover the rebates. That is bad customer service.

From a consumer/retailer ethics standpoint, Buy.con advertised and heavily promoted the product, sold the product, and presumably profited from those sales. Buy.con represented that the price was going to be $0 after rebate. Connect3D did not make that representation, Buy.con did. The consumer paid Buy.con. The consumer did not pay Connect3D (and according to the lawsuit filed in Orange County, neither did Buy.con directly). In this retail transaction, to apply your analogy, Buy.con thought Connect3D was a good manufacturer/supplier, Buy.con promoted a product supplied by Connect3D (told me about them), and it turned out Connect3D wasn't so good. The part of your analogy that breaks down is that based on Buy.con's representations, I completed a transaction with Buy.con...I gave Buy.con my money based on Buy.con's representations that Connect3D would pay me back. You missed that step in your analogy...the "you give me the money and my friend will pay you back" part (to put it in your terms). In that case, yes I would think someone would come after me and hold me responsible for my friends actions. That's the problem here and the problem you ignored.

Finally, from a legal perspective, Buy.con should be responsible under California consumer protection laws for false/misleading/deceptive advertising. There will be no criminal allegations until/unless further evidence is developed as to Buy.con's complicity. However, there is plenty of evidence for a civil lawsuit (a much different standard). (Examples of evidence to support civil suit: Buy.con's advertising, Buy.con's name is all over the rebate form, the rebate deal was exclusive to sales from Buy.con, the web page promoting the product from Buy.con). The problem with a civil lawsuit is the cost. No one wants to spend $12K to $25K maintaining a single plaintiff civil lawsuit in order to recover $50 or $200 plus perhaps some punitives. (I'm not accounting for small claims suits). Given that it seems most of the victims of this Buy.con/Connect3D fiasco are similarly situated, it may be possible to certify a class for a class action suit. That lawsuit will happen soon. In all likelihood, Buy.con will settle that lawsuit, the lawyers will get a good sum of money, and the consumers will still not recover anywhere near their $50 or $200 rebates.

Finally, yes to beat a dead horse, the only reason consumers have to gamble on whether they will get a rebate or not is the common complacency many consumers have toward the process. The return rate on some rebates is well below 20%. Arbitrary rejections are often tolerated. As long as consumers endorse a retailer who also tolerates rebate problems, like Buy.con did in this case (for instance, in this case, by not covering the Connect3D rebate, by not demanding a holdback for at the least the 20-40% of people who will actually apply for the rebate, by doing business with shady suppliers/promoters -- Connect3D US and Wintergreen/Market Development Specialist -- just to name a few problems) there is no incentive for that retailer to change it's ways, and no incentive for the government to tighten or enforce consumer protection laws so that we won't be debating whether Buy.con violated the law or not.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and I could be wrong.

spud, not arguing your points, just posing a question to think about. The entire crux against buy. com revolves around the fact that they advertised the rebate. other than the retailer, who could really advertise the rebate? manufactures could in theory, but since americans are all about price, it really wouldn't work. The reatailer, in 99% of the cases, sets the price of a given item, so only they would know the "final price after rebate." Also, where is the single most effective place to put the rebate? IMO....on the retailer's website/price tag B&M etc. In most cases, if it's not put with the item with the retailer, it wouldn't be known about. If there is a rebate to be had, but it is advertised at the manufacturer's site, or a magazine, etc, it could easily be glossed over by the vast majority. I think it's reasonable to say the retailer should almost always be the location of the rebate, regardless of who's sponsoring it. Responsibility should always lie with the sponsor.

also, comparing Newegg covering a $30 rebate on a $150 graphics card versus a $50 rebate on a $50 part is stretching it. goodwill can only go so far before you start fundamentally hurting your company. our company struggles with that all the time.

calvinandhobbes said: spud, not arguing your points, just posing a question to think about. The entire crux against buy. com revolves around the fact that they advertised the rebate. other than the retailer, who could really advertise the rebate? manufactures could in theory, but since americans are all about price, it really wouldn't work. The reatailer, in 99% of the cases, sets the price of a given item, so only they would know the "final price after rebate." Also, where is the single most effective place to put the rebate? IMO....on the retailer's website/price tag B&M etc. In most cases, if it's not put with the item with the retailer, it wouldn't be known about. If there is a rebate to be had, but it is advertised at the manufacturer's site, or a magazine, etc, it could easily be glossed over by the vast majority. I think it's reasonable to say the retailer should almost always be the location of the rebate, regardless of who's sponsoring it. Responsibility should always lie with the sponsor.

also, comparing Newegg covering a $30 rebate on a $150 graphics card versus a $50 rebate on a $50 part is stretching it. goodwill can only go so far before you start fundamentally hurting your company. our company struggles with that all the time.

I agree that the retailer should be the location of the rebate. However, the retailer profits from advertising that rebate, in several senses, including as in this case, inducing the customer into making a purchase he otherwise would not have made. Who profits? The manufacuter/supplier to some extent as he gains exposure for his product and obtains "shelf space" at a major retailer even by selling an item for $0. But more importantly, Buy.con profits. They have to make sales ... that's all they do. Obviously they must draw the line somewhere in their advertising. I think everyone would agree that if Buy.con said in their advertisement (and it is Buy.con's advertisement, not Connect3D's) that "this is a manufacturer's rebate and you may or may not get your rebate -- Buy.con will NOT be responsible" then Buy.con would not be responsible (and they probably wouldn't have sold any products). On the other hand, if Buy.con says in the advertisement "we guarantee you will get your rebate" well then I think everyone would agree that Buy.con would be responsible. Here we lie somewhere between those two extremes --- in real life, as is often the case, we fall in the grey area in between. Buy.con is, no doubt, representing that they endorse the rebate as they don't disclaim at all on the webpage. On the rebate form itself, Buy.con's name appears in several places alongside Connect3D's name. Buy.con doesn't disclaim that they are not repsonsible. In fact, on the Connect3D rebate form (obtained ONLY from Buy.con by the way), there IS a disclaimer that Buy.con is NOT responsible for certain things in regard to the rebate (lost mail, etc)...none of those things include "Connect3D failing to pay". By inference you can assume if Buy.con is disclaiming certain circumstances, then they would stand behind paying in other circumstances.

But the consumer shouldn't have to be a lawyer to deconstruct the small print. The consumer rightfully relies on the retailer that everything is as advertised. Between the consumer and the retailer (sponsor in your post), the retailer is by far in the better postion to ascertain the viability of the rebate. The retailer can EASILY takes steps to maintain the integrity of the rebate that the consumer would like to but in most cases could not. Especially a major national retailer. The retailer is in a better position than the consumer to pressure a reticent supplier to cough up the rebate. The retailer is in the better position to take legal action against the supplier. The retailer is in the better position to only endorse (sponsor) promotions that it can stand behind, and forgo the profit from those promotions it refuses to stand behind. The retailer has substantial leverage that the consumer, especially when acting indiviually, will never have. If the deal between retailer and supplier goes south ("we'll sell your junk, keep a percentage, give you the rest of the money, you pay the rebate"), the retailer is in the better position to handle that, not the consumer. Heck, the consumer isn't even aware of that contract between retailer and supplier. And finally, the retailer should not leave the consumer holding the bag while the retailer pursues the supplier.

There is a cost of doing business as a retailer, and as a consumer. One cost of doing business is the risk that a manufacturer/supplier goes belly up. In a case where the retailer collects money and funnels some of it to the belly up supplier, all the while promising (by endorsement) that the supplier will pay back that money, the risk/cost should be bourne by the retailer involved in the deal rather than the individual consumer relying on that retailer.

Make no mistake, this rebate was a promotion created jointly by Buy.con and Connect3D and Market Data Specialist INC. (one can infer from the Orange County lawsuit filed by Buy.con). It was endorsed (sponsored) by Buy.con. To absolve Buy.con of any responsibility is, and I mean this in a nice way, ignorant.

As to your other point about Newegg and $30 v. $50, that is simply a matter of opinion, as I think you agree.

ForSpud said: As to your other point about Newegg and $30 v. $50, that is simply a matter of opinion, as I think you agree.while, yes i agree it is an opinion, it is not even close to $30 vs. $50, it's $30 out of ~$150 of revenue versus $50 of $50 revenue. That is night and day versus what you just typed.

i do think you are overstepping the assumptions of what Buy's responsibility is. Yes, they disclaimed certain things. Since they don't disclaim fatal papercuts experienced during opening the envelops with checks, are they then, by default, assuming responsibility? Of course not. What if they are disclaiming lost submissions because their people are the ones physically handling it, but their contract explicitly says C3D is handling the cash?

I still see buy doing a service to people by advertising manufacturer's rebates, even if they have zero liability. I also wish buy would have stood behind the rebates across the board, but 2.3 million is a HUGE pill to swallow when they were not planning on it, especially given there are FTC guidelines that they followed. That part I liken to car crash lawsuits. The federal govt has clearly established guidelines on what standards cars should meet in crashes, but if they meet those guidelines are met, people still sue. what's the point of the standards if they don't really mean anything?

calvinandhobbes said: ...
I still see buy doing a service to people by advertising manufacturer's rebates, even if they have zero liability. I also wish buy would have stood behind the rebates across the board, but 2.3 million is a HUGE pill to swallow when they were not planning on it, especially given there are FTC guidelines that they followed. ...

The service would be Buy.con washing their hands of the rebate BEFORE I relied on them. Of course, if they were up front about that, they wouldn't have sold much.

The 2.3 mil assumes all eligible for the rebate partook. Anecdotal evidence suggests only a small percentage of buyers actually follow through and redeem the rebate. In this case, given the size of the rebates, I would venture that a much larger percentage actually submitted for the rebate. That still doesn't justify Buy.con's response in my opinion. They made a heck of lot more bank last year than I did, even accounting for their loss of 2.3 mil. verus my loss of $50 or $200.

One more interesting fact. When you go to the Connect3D website to track your rebate, it states:

PROMOTION: Buy.com $50 MIR on 2GB USB Drive

I understand what MIR stands for, but I thought it fitting that they threw in the Buy.con part. As I've written before, Buy.con's name was all over this thing both on the rebate form and ads from the beginning and at the manufacturer's website throughout. I am not saying this was not a manufacturer's rebate but obviously they plastered Buy.con's name everywhere to gain credence from Buy.con's name and reputation on the deal. I assume it was with Buy.con's permission.

michal1980 said: MRW2276 said: The funny thing about this all. Is I haven't bought a thing from Buy.com in months now (I don't even read Buy.com's deal emails they send every day anymore). Over that same time I discovered frys.com and love them. Frys must of made $1000 off me in under 6 weeks all ready. Guess the 50 rebate was worth losing a ton of customers like me huh buy? Wait I mean bye.

yes you logic is perfect.

They never had you as a customer, so how could they loss you?

My creditcard would say other wise with all the other stuff I bought at buy.con as well. Plus selling my info and email

The way dontbuy.con has handled this so far there is NO doubt in my mind that IF ( by any stretch of the imagination ) they do win some kind of lawsuit against conntect3D, and passed some of that money to us poor sucker customers, they would DEDUCT the measley $10.00 gift card the sent us. Used or not.