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?

By: me

me — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:18:55 +0000

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.

By: Lawyer Man

Lawyer Man — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:34:24 +0000

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!!

By: bee

bee — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:15:12 +0000

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

By: Anita

Anita — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:39:07 +0000

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

By: Kat

Kat — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:07:41 +0000

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.

By: jane

jane — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:20:28 +0000

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.

By: Linda

Linda — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:42:24 +0000

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.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:31:15 +0000

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).

By: Anita

Anita — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:12:45 +0000

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

By: Anita

Anita — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:11:20 +0000

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