I ran across a story that should prove to be a very interesting debate. A lawsuit was filed November 10th between Saks Fifth Avenue and a customer, who bought a pair of diamond earrings and a brooch as a set for $28,000. Only problem is that the Saks sales associate priced them as a set, when they were not. The $48,000 price tag had fallen off the brooch. The proper price should have been $76,000. Saks asked the customer to pay the difference and wrote in a letter following several phone calls, it would charge her credit card for the full amount. The customer stood her ground and said she should not have to pay the difference and Saks wants the difference. So here we are, in a lawsuit.

Who is right? Who would you side with; Saks or the customer?

Saks Fifth Avenue is suing a customer, over thousands of dollars worth of mis-priced jewelry.

Emily Pickering is being sued by the retail store after two clerks sold her diamond earrings and a diamond broach as a set for $28,000.

Turns out, the earrings and the broach weren’t a set — and should have been sold for $76,000.

The store’s General Manager called Pickering, told her of the mistake, and asked her to either return the jewelry or pay up at a discounted price.

Court documents show Pickering refused.

Now Saks is suing her for the price of the broach and its lawyers’ fees.

Story via

like
tweet
plus
  • ggirl

    Saks should not sue the customer for THEIR mistake. The customer was led to believe that the items were sold as a set and made her purchase based on that information. She did not try and defraud Saks by removing the price tag, and her sales associate should have known what comes as a set and what does not. If there was a problem BEFORE the tranaction took place in the store and the manager informed the customer of the error, at least the customer would be able to make a decision to make the purchase or not. To go after a customer for their mistake after the fact is ridiculous. I cannot imagine Saks actually charging someone’s cc either without the cardholder’s permission.

  • Cherie L.

    I understand Saks’ need to recover cost and profits for an item that is legally sold. However, the customer has no obligation to pay anything more than what was agreed upon during the original point of sale, which is 28k. If Saks wins this case; technically, all stores can go cry wolf and say price tags conveniently fell off and even more customers could get “conned” into this. Fire the associates and write off the loss. The economy is bad but Saks still needs to save face.

  • SKelly

    IMHO, I think the customer is right and has the right to sue.

    It was Saks’ mistake!.

    Look at it this way. I know VERY few retailers that would call a customer to refund money if the customer was charged TOO much!

    As a much smaller example…I planned a 50th B-day party for my husband with 20 people at a local restaurant, and was quoted a group price for the prix-fix menu. When we got there, I verified the reservation with the manager, who told me it would cost an amount 25% higher “because it was Sunday”. I gave him the manager’s name that quoted me the price and threatened to walk out if they didn’t honor the original quote. This was said quite loudly in front of other patrons.

    Well, he caved. Sure, it was the other manager’s mistake, but hey. That’s the price she quoted me.

    Same goes here…to me it doesn’t matter whether it’s a burger or a Harry Winston suite.

    Happy holidays to all!

  • lisa

    i completely agree with the previous comments. saks has no right to sue the customer for their mistake. she paid the price she was quoted. and therefore they need to accept the loss. good for the customer for standing her ground!!! the sales associate should have been more responsible and done more research to find the proper price.

  • lisa

    ahhh just had a fight with my dad over this- he thinks saks is entitled to recover the money. he claims the customer should have known that the price was too good to be true. but i said that the sales associate should have known she was quoting too low a price and done more research. and we dont know whether the customer knows about diamind prices- the sales associate is in the better position to know about pricing since she sells diamonds all day long.

  • KathyB

    It was clearly Saks’ mistake. No question. If the price tag had fallen off the piece of jewelry, it was not the fault of the customer. There were apparently TWO SA’s involved in the transaction, so it would only make sense that at least ONE of them would have noticed and realized that the pieces were not a set, but separate pieces with separate price tags.

    I agree with Cherie L. and ggirl. Saks needs to write this one off as a loss and eat it.

  • Amanda Rowe

    Yep, it’s Saks’ own fault. This type of thing happens all the time in retail, but you don’t see Macy’s hunting down customers and forcing them to pay an extra $20 because their jeans rang up wrong. I understand that there is a big difference between $48,000 and $20, but it’s the same principle. Saks made the mistake, and they need to accept their loss. If they did sue her, I highly doubt that they would win, in fact, I think it would even get laughed out of court.

  • Jen

    They should probably fire the sales associate, but I don’t see how this was the customer’s fault or why she should have to pay. It’s not like she stole the jewelry.

  • mj

    Saks has had a LOT of problems lately. Things like this happen on the retail level every day with them. I prefer to shop with Neiman Marcus or Nordstrom as their customer service is light years beyond Saks. For being such a “high-end” store they certainly have some “low-end” tactics.

  • Sherin Ng

    yes I stand on the customer side here. I had a similar experience when I bought my diamond ring as well! The sales manager called me up the next day to say that the wrong price tag was put on! How ridiculous! Happily, when brought up to the highest level, the store agreed to let me keep my purchase and apologized for their mistake. The store was going to fire the poor sales assistant who sold me the ring, but I put a stop to that.

  • MizzJ

    I totally agree with the first two responses. According to Wikipedia, heehee, so long as the person didn’t knowingly take advantage of the situation, then they are not liable to pay the difference since the offer was for the 28K, which she accepted and that is binding. C’mon Saks is it really worth all the bad press for this?
    http://highmaintenancewoman.blogspot.com

  • janis

    We know who is going to win…Saks. If it was me I’d just return both items and not shop there again. We are not talking small change here, that is a lot of money. What if it were the other way around and Saks said they did not have to refund?

  • susan

    I think the customer bought the articles in good faith. It was the responsibility of the store to confirm the price prior to the sale. I say…shut up Saks, you’re at fault. Makes me second guess whether I will continue to purchase from Saks. There are too many other stores that have the same merchandise.

  • Kara

    Here is the deal I have worked in retail for a good number of years and the customer isn’t always rigth period. Althought the customer didn’t know it at the time she has stolen the brooch regardless that it was a employees mistake. Period. Seriously a noble person would have returned it. I am sure on some level the customer knew she was getting too good of a deal. I mean no one is that stupid are they?

    Saks should also offer the customer a huge discount on the brooch I think their 70% for their mistake woudl be good. I mean a 48,000 thousand brooch for 12,000 seems like a good apology for SAKS dumb mistake.

  • Kate

    Legally, I don’t believe the customer will have to pay. Saks would have to prove that she was so knowledgeable about diamonds and jewelry that she knew that she was getting a deal that would never exist. Given that saks is a large corporation, and you would think that they actually train their sales associates well/only hire people well versed in jewelry (especially a sales associate who is responsible for high priced transactions), I feel that sakswould have a very difficult time proving that the customer in this case was more knowledgeable about jewelry than the sales associate (whose job it is to know his/her merchandise). If it were two individual sellers perhaps the outcome would be different. Personally, I think saks seems quite silly in saying that the customer knows more about jewelry than the people saks hired to sell it!

    Regarding public relations, I agree with most of the posters above, what a bad idea to sue a customer over a legal transaction! While $50K is a ton of money (and I know that saks is hurting), at the same time, Saks is a large store, and taking one $50K loss shouldn’t make a difference to them.

  • lawbabe

    I agree the customer is right – I would still not slepp well if I were her though- I would think of the salesperson – who cares of SAKS? But the idea of the salesperson would no doubt hunt me. Everyone makes mistakes, but after that, I would not enjoy my jewellery. Maybe wait for the outcome of the case, and when she wins, return the items- just to show them!

  • Kate

    BTW-she did not ‘steal’ the broach. As someone who has worked in a new york DA’s office, larceny (or what would be grand larceny, in this case), requires lack of permission or authority to take said item. The salesperson gaver her permission to take the item. And a noble person wouldn’t have to return the broach-its not like she accidentally took it without anyone noticing. Saks is not some small boutique jewelry store, its a huge company. She got a good deal, just like those people who bought 150 dollar jimmy choos on the 8th floor these past few weeks. This isn’t a matter of customer service in terms of the customer being ‘always right,’ its a matter of law at this point.

  • A-T-G

    I think this situation is ridiculous! The very idea that SAKS is going to sue a customer because they mispriced somthing is insane! IF this had been caught in the store, she would have been asked to pay the correct amount or return the merch and I would have agreed with them. Waiting until the customer has GONE HOME with their purchase and then calling them to demand further payment is unacceptable. She was quoted a price by TWO SA’s…TWO! One of them probably checked with another once the tag was found to be missing. It’s pretty standard to double check something like that. The price she was quoted was incorrect but, that’s not her fault. I’m sure she was surprised by the low price but, I wouldn’t think it completely unreasonable to believe those pieces came together.

    That being said, I would find the store’s behavior so shady and hateful that I’d return the merchandise and never shop there again. To threaten to charge the customer’s cc to correct your mistake is unacceptable. Shame on Saks. I’m glad the customer is standing up for herself. It’s something I like to think I would do as well.

  • Cassy

    I agree..it’s saks fault. this just makes them look bad by doing this and says how much they value their customers.

  • jr

    MJ: I totally agree with you Saks is having lots of customer service issues lately, just last week i had my aunt visiting from overseas, we went shopping together, she bought a few handbags that were on sale…. she went back home and a few days later the s.a charged (with out asking or with out anyone requesting this) for another bag which she transfered from another store and sent it to my aunts home address here in the US …My aunt asked me to call the store and find out what happened, when I called and spoke to the s.a she said and i quote ” well i saw your aunt looking at those bags and knew she would love to have in this color, i had to do it with out asking because it was going to go fast…anyways dont worry she will love it”….she ended keeping the bag but she was really upset. Then last week I was in Dallas and stopped in the Saks in the Galleria, asked for a pair of shoes and it took them over an hour to bring them,(i went for lunch meanwhile, came back and he was still looking) the s.a said “i am sorry we have a mess back there, the manager had to come and help me”. I have to say in my experience that NM is highly above Saks when it comes to customer service, this lady should not be charged the diff. nor sued. They are supposed to be a luxury retailer, maybe she did not know, maybe she was a con-artist it does not matter they sold it for that price, it was their mistake.

  • Jeaniep

    I have worked in retail for more than 15 years. If the customer bought it as a set and the SA sold it as a set, then they could claim that it was false advertising. They can NOT charge her creit card either, if they do not have permission. She could just dispute the charges or cancel the card. They should eat the charges and take it as a learning experience on how to train SA’s better.

  • luce

    i don’t think that saks should sue the customer, but i do believe that the customer should just return the jewelry if she doesn’t want to pay the real price. ya she thought it was cheaper, but guess what its not! so she should just return it.

  • my new bag

    Well that i some lucky lady, and anyway who can afford $28,000 , the price of a car
    really doesn’t need that much good luck.
    Maybe next time, it will happen to somone trying to buy a suit for work
    that will help them get a better job.
    Just a thot.

  • Joe

    Sorry the only thing Saks should do is fire those SA’s.
    They have no legal right to sue a shopper for their own mistake.

  • Jan

    This has happened many times to me personally-not this amount of money mind you…but when Macy’s or Nordstrom etc. has had the wrong signs above an item. When they say this isn’t on sale-I walk them over to the signs and they have to honor it and sell it to me at that price. If it is signed that way -even by mistake-they have to honor the price. So I see absolutely no reason for them to be able to sue her when their employee acting on their behalf -sold it to her at that price.

  • missy

    they can sue but will never win any lawyer will tell you that. I think they are just trying to scare her in to paying they are desperate for money right now.

  • Anita

    Saks has every right to ask for the merchandise back or to be paid. The customer is not being honest, shame on her. Everytime she wears it she’ll remember how she was dishonest, how can she enjoy it now?

  • Anita

    When someone goes to buy jewelry at this price they know exactly what’s going on, she’s playing dumb like she didn’t know. She probably couldn’t wait to get out the store doors to jump with joy thinking she got it for free. This is called stealing.

  • Kate

    Saks 8th floor was selling stuart weitzmans and jimmy choos at about 75% discount (way lower than any of the other stores were selling them.) This woman might have believed she was getting a similar deal on jewelry. What should the woman have done, said to the salesperson, “no, the amount you quoted me doesn’t seem right. I’ll just pay you twice as much to be safe?”

  • CHRIS

    I really think Saks is in the wrong. In an Economy such as this, you have yo choose your battles. If I was the customer I would return all the merchendise…close my Saks card and tell them to shove

  • Tracy

    In this kind of economy, stores are slashing prices like crazy. Sales left and right. Every time I find a too-good-to-be-true deal (and there are tons out there right now) I don’t want to worry about being sued later. Besides, jewelry is super marked up anyway. I would be so offended if I got a call like that for an item I bought before. I say keep it and wear it proud. Fight for consumer rights. Reward good customer service with your patronage. I stopped shopping at Bloomingdales because of the horrifying rudeness and happily spend all my money at Nordstrom.

  • PurseAddict

    Based on the story, it is difficult to say who’s right or wrong given the fact that people do make mistakes sometimes. You can’t just fire someone immediately. Imagine if you were in the salespersons’ shoes. It might not be their mistakes on the mis-pricing part. The loss is A LOT, i.e. $48K. I completely understand why Saks is suing the customer for not paying the difference. I am sure that the lady knows how much the earrings and brooch cost. She should return the item or pay the balance. It’s only fair to do so.

  • Merve

    I do agree that Saks is totally in the wrong and their case wont hold up in court as a binding agreement was made. Kinda the same thing happened to me in Emporio Armani in London last week. I found a jumper/coat style thing and i saw the price written as 149 pounds and even though it seemed cheap i justified it by saying to myself u couldnt classify it as a coat so i decided to buy it. Low and behold at the cashier the guy turns around and says its 419 pounds. They had labeled wrong. I refused to buy a jumper for that much money and ended up declining to purchase but not after being slightly embarassed at the counter. It was totally my mistake for not making a fuss about wrong labeling. However with clothes barcodes always catch u out. I wonder if the jewellry had a special code to input? Im sure then they would have realised their mistake.

  • dyjann

    Yeah, you stupidly sell the items at a lower price and expect the customer to correct you on that? And plus, you already charged her for that amount, it’s not like she argued with you to be charged that low. I’m with the majority, shame on Saks.

  • Anna

    Saks needs to rethink their price tags, but not only this, I would think that a sales associate would be aware of the product price. Aren’t products coded?
    Either way, the error lies with Saks.

  • Jennifer

    This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous. The jewelry had a price on them, the woman paid for them, end of story. If Saks mistagged an item or the SA didn’t know any better, too bad. Lesson to Saks-keep better track of your inventory (tags & such) & make sure your associates KNOW their merchandise! A trained associate would know which items are a set & which aren’t, plus a ball park price for each. Someone who knew what he or she was doing wouldn’t have made this mistake. Tough lesson, I know-I used to sell jewelry.

  • Serene

    Just wondering, if they NEVER found out about this boo-boo worth $50k, nobody would be none the wiser until stock-taking. Then how would they go about getting the $50k back, I wonder?

  • Dominic

    The customer is not always right. Worked in retail before, and there are some very sketchy individuals.

    With that being said. The above situation. In a typical scenario, since the employee made such a huge mistake, they would typically be fired.

    Nowadays,…companies like Saks are taking legal action against their customers.

    This is where they are DUMB! Yes, it was a HUGE mistake by their employees. But it is a bigger mistake to sue a customer to recover the costs.

    Look at it this way. You have a customer that can AFFORD to buy a single $28k item. This is obviously a wealthy individual. There is no doubt this customer would easy spend that amount at Saks in a few years. This is NOT a customer that is spending their whole life’s savings on a single item. In short…this is probably a REPEAT (and wealthy) customer.

    Saks is an idiot for not absorbing the costs for this transaction.

  • ALAINA

    I THINK SAKS IS SUING THE WRONG PERSON- SAKS MAY BE ABLE TO PROVE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MISTAKE ON THE PRICE, BUT AS A CONSUMER, WE HAVE A RESONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT THE STORE’S SALES PEOPLE ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO REPRESENT WHAT THEY ARE SELLING! IN ORDER TO SUE SOMEONE, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THEY WERE WRONG, OR NEGLIGENT, IN SOME MANNER. THE STORE MAY BE ABLE TO SUE THE SALES PEOPLE SINCE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO KNOW BETTER, (BUT THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT THEY WEREN’T TRAINED PROPERLY). IF THE SALES PEOPLE DIDN’T KNOW ANY BETTER, WHO ARE TRAINED, HOW CAN THEY EXPECT A CONSUMER TO KNOW WHAT THE PRICE OF THESE ITEMS ARE? BUT AS FAR AS THIS WOMAN IS CONCERNED, THEY SHOULDN’T WIN. TOO BAD SO SAD IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE VERDICT! SHE WENT IN, PAID FOR ITEMS, GOT A SALES SLIP AND WENT HOME. ALL SHE NEEDS IS A GOOD LAWYER AND SUE SAKS FOR HER FEES!

  • Retail employee

    Whenever a retailer makes a mistake, the onus should not be on the customer. There was no intention of scamming Saks, the customer merely wished to purchase the jewelry, and did so at the price stated.

    If Saks were to win this suit, it would set a dangerous precedent for retailers. Since employees routinely make mistakes, customers would now be held liable for their actions. The fault ought to laid on the employee, and Saks should use internal mechanisms to settle the dispute.

  • V

    i assume most of you are familiar with the phrase, “once broken considered sold” well, i think, “once sold, considered owned”..

  • Anita

    Where did all the honest people go, people can be so greedy.

  • Anita

    Saks will will in court, you can count on that.

  • Kate

    Saks definitely won’t win. There’s no way a court would allow precedent to be set by this-Saks is a large retailer, not an individual seller, and the onus is on Saks to hire competent salespeople and train them well (and not let them make high priced transactions until they are sure of their salespeople’s competance).

  • Linda

    Wow, what an interesting issue. Being a true Libra, I can see both sides of the situation. I would feel guility knowing the true price of the item (at that level, it is a little hard to imagine this customer did not have a clue the value of the jewelry). On the other hand, if that was the price that was given, I think Saks will lose this case.

  • jane

    I hope SAKS fire chapter 11 someday.

    I had similar case years ago at Service Merchandise.(anyone still remember this store, they have gone bankrupted.)
    During one Xmas, the store has 50% on everything, so I bought a pair of diamond solitaire earing at 50%. Later that day, I got a message on my voice mail said solitaire is not on sale, SA made mistake, they charged another half to my CC. I went to store next day asking for refund, they refuse to give, saying that everything is final. I am glad that Service Merchandise is gone forever, and I also send the earing as gift to other people. I almost forget the whole thing until today.

    I hope Emily will win.

  • Kat

    In the spirit of being fair, I think the customer should just return ALL that was sold to her as a set: the pair of diamond earrings and the brooch. Then, Saks should just give her back the money she paid them. Personally, I don’t think I would still be able to wear, much less have the earrings and the brooch in my possession when they are so highly disputed, if this happened to me. I don’t think I’d feel happy wearing them anyway. Maybe, if the customer just returned the items, Saks would feel indebted to her and extend her some sort of special discount on her future purchases for a long period of time.

  • Anita

    Saks did offer her a substantial discount on the brooch but the customer wanted them to pay her attorney fees too. The gall.

  • bee

    I think the customer rightfully paid for her merchandise and left the store, albeit knowing at the back of her mind that it was a steal (no pun intended!). I think Saks had the right to ask (politely) for their money back and then it would then be the customer’s prerogative, or based on how much her conscience permits, to pay the difference. If she refused, then Saks would just have to cut their losses on that one!

    Something similar happened to me at TM Lewin in London. I bought some items for £32 and the SA charged me £3.20. Now although their items are bar coded, corporate discounts etc apply, and the SA would always have to manually input the amount into the card reader for the customer to enter their PIN. The next day, an extra £28.80 (the difference) was charged to my card (without my permission!)…. Someone obviously performed a daily audit and discovered the error. I didn’t contest it cos I couldn’t justify buying a shirt and cufflinks for £3.20 and it was human error, which can happen to anyone.

    I felt that was the right thing to do. My opinion might well be different if we are talking in the $50k ballpark! lol

  • Lawyer Man

    OMG some of the people that post on this website are complete morons. For those that posted similar stories like the one above paying 32 pounds for and paying 3.20. The sales person offered 32, you accepted 32, then only charged 3.20. That means you still own the balance, thus they can legally charge you, albeit the extra credit card purchase without permission is not legally binding. That being said there is still a balance of 28.80 under contract. Therefore, that is a different case. A legal contract requires several components to be legit in the eyes of the law: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Intent to Form Legal Relations, and Legality for the most part cover it. In the Saks case, the offer was 28k, the consideration was the ‘set’ of jewlery, the SA accepted the offer put forward from the customer….thats correct, a 28k price tag is not an offer, and thus a store does not have to honour it. A price tag is an invitation to make an offer. When you go to the counter and say I would like to buy these: you are offering the store 28k to purchase and they accept. This is different from false advertising where a company says we sell this product at a specific price and when you arrive there, they do not do that. Again seperate case. After offer, acceptance, and consideration, we have legality: was it a legal item = Yes; capacity: Intent to for legal relations: did Saks try and sell the ‘set’ at 28k: yes; was the SA certified to make sale, here is the only question mark in the case and is the intire point of the lawsuit. As mentioned in a few clever posts, Sacks will have to proove that the customer was more knowledgable about the products than the 2 sales associates. If they have a case here they can argue that the SA did not have the capacity to form legal relations and thus the contract is void. If this is the case, the customer would be on the hook to either return the objects, as no contract has been formed, or pay the balamce. That being said, it will be nearly impossible to proove the customer knew more than the SA unless she turns out to have sold or dealt in this market in the past.

    As for all the posts that talk about: I could not keep the items if I knew I got a deal, you people are idiots. If I sold you a new car for $5,000 today, and you knew it was worth $12,000. but I needed the cash, would you feel guilty about getting a deal. NO! Stop your pathetic complaining. You can thank my wife for putting me onto this site and this stupid debate!!

    PS Ignore spelling errors!!

  • me

    Yes, Saks has a legal right to ask for the money, but it was the fault of employees that a piece of jewelry left the store unpaid for. The customer did not steal it; she paid asking price.

  • Empress

    THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT! What happened to good customer service? First of all, most tags say, “Suggested Retail Price”. That means the Vendor suggests that the Customer (Store) sell their product at that price. The Consumer can haggle the “suggested retail price”. Don’t believe me? You’ve never been shopping with me. YOU NEVER HAVE TO PAY FULL PRICE IN ANY RETAIL STORE. Second, if the sales associate, manager, store – whoever – does not price the item correctly, how is that the consumer’s fault? It’s not. Saks should take a loss and make sure their jewelry is priced correctly the next time. If this had happened to me, I would return the items and ask for my 28K back too. $28K is better than $0, no?

  • El

    I think debating about the legality of this is pretty useless unless you are a trained lawyer, in which case it’d be a pretty useless exercise anyway unless you knew more facts (how well versed the customer was in the product line, whether she had any reason to know she was getting an unfair deal).

    A bit off topic, but pulling away from the legal implications of both Saks’ and the customer’s actions, morally I believe the customer is 100% in the wrong. Of course she belongs in a different tier than most of us if she’s going out buying $28,000 pieces of jewlery, but assuming she is somewhat price sensitive (which is why she refused to pay the extra 40-odd K for the brooch), she would’ve shopped around the jewelry line and known that the brooch sells for about this much, and rings sell for about this much. Therefore I would argue that she did have some reason to believe that she was getting a huge deal on her merchandise.

    Once she got the phone call that she didn’t get the amazing deal she initially though she did, she should have sucked it up and just returned the brooch. It’s absolutely ridiculous and she’s a horrible person for trying to take advantage of an honest mistake on the part of an SA.

  • Oliana

    The customer is right. It’s not her fault if the assistants are not competent. Had this taken place in the UK it would never become a lawsuit.

  • 1L

    It’s not about whether or not a price tag is an offer (which it’s not, just an invitation to submit an offer to the store), but about mistake of fact. If the customer SHOULD have reason to know that she was getting an unfair deal (and considering she was about to buy the brooch for $28K, she might have some sort of constructive knowledge about the value of the set), then Saks wins and at most gets their items back, even if there was a binding contract.

    It really can go either way depending on how Saks argues it, but if the price difference isn’t insane (like a hundred fold) and the customer didn’t have reason to know the price wasn’t a true price, then Saks loses.

  • bee

    Does lawyer man need to call people who post items on this site morons? Totally unnecessary! Express your opinion without being RUDE!!!!!

  • Barb

    I don’t think that the customer should pay as it was the stores (salespersons) mistake. It is the stores and their employee’s responsability to make sure that the pricing is correct. When something in the store is advertised either in the store or in a flyer (unless it has a retaction) the store ALWAYS gives the price it was advertised for weather its right or wrong. That is only fair and if they want to keep their customers, the only right thing to do. Because, if that were the case where nothing was done, all these companys would falsely advertise things at a lower price to get people to come into their store and then change the price to a higher price. Which is illeagal. If I was the customer in this situation, I would also stand my ground and not pay for it. It is the stores fault for not telling their employees the correct price so I don’t think that its the clerks fault either!

  • E9collections

    what you do not know…
    the pieces were purchased in the estate department.
    a saks manager sold the pieces apparently knowing the pieces were not a set.
    the defendant is an art collector.
    is this this the state of our country? Schools are tapped, food banks are empty and corporations are in scandalous control. Civil suits only feed the masses and blogishysteria!
    art is long and life is short.

  • ReRe

    The customer is right. She bought the item, I’m sure not knowing of the error and like all of us girls probably fell in love with her purchase. I don’t think the bad press Saks is getting is worth the lawsuit. I can’t believe they said they’d just charge the difference to her account…Hopefully we get to hear how this one turned out.

  • Neha

    Employees make mistakes all the time but this is a really big mistake. They should have compensated the customer somehow. It’s their fault. They need to fix it. What if the customer was somebody who came to visit this country…their was nothing they could have done. They would rather spend lot of money on a legal suit .
    I don’t like to shop there though I go there quite a bit. It’s just they kiss up to you when they are making commission & don’t even bother when they are not. Saks employees somehow think since they work there they have become very sophisticated & talk down to whoever they can. I love Nordstroms.

  • Harvey

    I think the customer is at fault. If your shopping for diamonds, you already know somewhat about karat wieght, clarity, and cost, as a consumer who is willing to pay that much has probably done home work, there are so many scams out there. SO, I am guessing the cusomter new the price would not be for a set, but was just trying to WIN ONE OVER. I have had a lot of customers do the same to me..come on…So you can buy two cars for the price of one? when you know the worth???? nope, she knew what she was doing..and its called stealing!

Follow Closely