Comments on: Debate: Should Saks sue?

By: Harvey

Harvey — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:24:37 +0000

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!

By: Neha

Neha — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:35:59 +0000

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.

By: ReRe

ReRe — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:41:33 +0000

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.

By: E9collections

E9collections — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:18:43 +0000

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.

By: Barb

Barb — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:38:35 +0000

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!

By: bee

bee — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:14:09 +0000

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

By: 1L

1L — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:51:58 +0000

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.

By: Oliana

Oliana — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:07:56 +0000

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.

By: El

El — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:32:57 +0000

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.

By: Empress

Empress — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:38:42 +0000

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?