Wal-Mart Customers Trick Stores to Match a Fake $90 Price for PS4 - Update

[J Tyran]

Snip

I did, you didn't. You're arguing fruitlessly with people who have shown you the evidence and you will get precisely nowhere, because you haven't done anything at all to dissuade that. So, basically, you're mistaken. Your interpretation is wrong and you haven't proven otherwise.

Argument from majority fallacy, also you still have not shown how he committed fraud. Showing a description to a product is not an admission of wrongdoing no matter how much you want it to be, creating a fake listing, creating a fake lookalike website and things like that would be. Convincing Walmart that a 3rd party price was the Amazon listing if they hadn't allowed 3rd parties would have been fraud.

Convincing Walmart to honour its special offer isnt fraud no matter how much you want it to.

 

[havoc33]

Also, I'm surprised about the Sears story, too. Six months ago, I couldn't even get them to price match, from their own site, a tool sitting on the shelf right behind the guy I was talking to. It would have been $20-30 cheaper if they did. I went home, ordered it online for the lower price with free shipping and got it a couple days later, while that individual store, who is apart of an idiots-led company that competes with itself, lost revenue. I guess I either have a store that's extra incompetent (or I got a lazy employee, who just lied to me) in my area, or Sears learned their mistake, only make new ones.

You obviously don't understand how these things work. There could be several reasons why the price is different in a physical store compared to the webshop, and that has nothing to do with the competence or lazyness of the employee you were talking to.

1) The online shop does not have the same costs compared to a physical shop, which sometimes results in the webshop being able to offer a lower price
2) Purchase price on the specific party of goods in one store might be higher than in another store, even within the same chain. This depends on time of purchase, and sometimes qty

I used to work in the biggest electronics shop in Norway. Although our physical stores had a different price strategy than our online shop, we were most of the time very lenient with price matching towards our online shop if a customer asked. But there were times we also couldn't match it, simply because it would make us take a heavy loss on the item. It all depends on the purchase price of the goods being offered, it's not always the same.

 

[FalloutJack]

Nope

Sorry, but there's no fallacy here, man. You're just sort of repeating yourself and I keep placing you back in front of the truth. Oh, and antagonizing me won't help either, though you've tried. You're pretty much stuck with the result.

Captcha: For sure

Whoa, the captcha even agrees. Weird vibe off of that one.

 

[J Tyran]

Nope

Sorry, but there's no fallacy here, man. You're just sort of repeating yourself and I keep placing you back in front of the truth. Oh, and antagonizing me won't help either, though you've tried. You're pretty much stuck with the result.

Captcha: For sure

Whoa, the captcha even agrees. Weird vibe off of that one.

So the case you have made is that poor you feel the need to turn towards the captcha system for validation? I'm not trying to antagonise you either, just trying to make you see how wrong it is to accuse people of serious crimes when there is plenty of reason to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Yes, you are. You ran out of ammo a while ago, so this is what you've resorted to. I mean, look... You're trying to use my amusing jest about the captcha as justification. I think the one making unjustified accusations is Picard. Can't think for the life of me why.

 

[J Tyran]

Snip

Yes, you are. You ran out of ammo a while ago, so this is what you've resorted to. I mean, look... You're trying to use my amusing jest about the captcha as justification. I think the one making unjustified accusations is Picard. Can't think for the life of me why.

Well the reason I had to keep repeating myself is because you simply can't understand or refuse to understand that taking advantage of a special offer isn't a criminal offence, after all even the "victim" realised this and have not pursued charges and made changes to the policy.

Nobody deceived Walmart into allowing 3rd party listings so therefore it wasn't illegal, you have stubbornly stuck to your point despite this fact and despite the fact there is no evidence that the customer did anything wrong. If somebody had tricked Walmart into price matching a 3rd party if they only accepted official listings it would have been illegal, if the customer faked the listing or colluded with the person that placed it in the first place it would have been illegal but asking them to honour a price matching offer isn't and Walmart are the only people responsible for the offers they make.

I just find it very sad that you're so pro-corporate and so anti-consumer that you think people are committing a serious crime when they take advantage of a poorly thought out special offer.

If you find my objection to your claims that somebody is a criminal without good cause and that companies should be able to fix their mistakes by prosecuting people antagonising I'm sorry, can you please drop the roundabout accusations of trolling though? I'm not offended but I don't think its very constructive.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

All this coming from the guy who was refuted time and again. Let me remind you that your claims were debunked and you did not come up with anything better. That is what actually happened. Oh, and nobody's actually making that accusation. You're not actually annoying. Now, stop trying to distract people with your red herrings about corporation and whatnot. I don't care if this makes Walfart bankrupt. I just maintain that the position you take is incorrect, because that is what's true.

 

[J Tyran]

Zoop

All this coming from the guy who was refuted time and again. Let me remind you that your claims were debunked and you did not come up with anything better. That is what actually happened. Oh, and nobody's actually making that accusation. You're not actually annoying. Now, stop trying to distract people with your red herrings about corporation and whatnot. I don't care if this makes Walfart bankrupt. I just maintain that the position you take is incorrect, because that is what's true.

Except that you have been unable to show anything to back your claim up, nothing you have shown backs up the basic premise of "obtaining goods or services by deception" and nothing that cannot be explained by reasonable doubt. Asking Walmart to honour a special offer is not deceiving them, showing them the cheapest price on a website is not deceiving them, showing them an item description the staff member asked them for is not deception.

You have not been able to refute that, your reasoning behind the accusations of fraud are "just because" without you actually refuting anything.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

No, that is what you claimed, and you didn't actually do anything more than that, so that's why it didn't end in your favor. Now, you can keep arguing that, but it won't alter until you bring something new to the table. And since you have said that you cannot do that, that's the end of it.

 

[J Tyran]

Snip

No, that is what you claimed, and you didn't actually do anything more than that, so that's why it didn't end in your favor. Now, you can keep arguing that, but it won't alter until you bring something new to the table. And since you have said that you cannot do that, that's the end of it.

You're the ones with the claims, its like you stating pink flying unicorns exist and then asking me to prove they don't. I have not claimed anything outside of the facts, the fact that:-

-A customer went into a Walmart store and asked them to honour a price matching special offer.
-Showed the member of staff the cheapest price listing on a website that Walmarts own policy approved of in the special offer T&Cs.
-The manager agreed and overrode Walmarts retail price at the checkout and allowed the customer to buy it for the "matched" price.

I have claimed nothing other than that, those are simply facts unless you want to refute or argue them them? You're the one claiming "because, reasons" that somehow this is illegal and yet cannot prove it and want me to prove that it isn't?

 

[FalloutJack]

?

Yeah, that didn't actually happen. See, we said 'because legal reasons that apply to the situation' and you were just 'Naw' because reasons. You can't dress it up any differently, and you can't change what happened. Everything was already proven and you just have to go back into the thread and read. You were given facts that proved more than what you originally knew, so that your facts and those facts led to the actual truth. There is no skirting around it or distracting from it. Now, you want to ignore them, which cannot work. I seat you back in front of them.

 

[J Tyran]

?

Yeah, that didn't actually happen. See, we said 'because legal reasons that apply to the situation' and you were just 'Naw' because reasons. You can't dress it up any differently, and you can't change what happened. Everything was already proven and you just have to go back into the thread and read. You were given facts that proved more than what you originally knew, so that your facts and those facts led to the actual truth. There is no skirting around it or distracting from it. Now, you want to ignore them, which cannot work. I seat you back in front of them.

Right, please go back and show me where I have claimed anything other than:-

-A customer went into a Walmart store and asked them to honour a price matching special offer.
-Showed the member of staff the cheapest price listing on a website that Walmarts own policy approved of in the special offer T&Cs.
-The manager agreed and overrode Walmarts retail price at the checkout and allowed the customer to buy it for the "matched" price.

This happened, I also explained how this wasn't fraud:-

-The website the customer presented to the member of staff and manager was a genuine website and approved by Walmarts policy, the customer didn't show them a faked website.
-Walmarts own policy allowed Amazon market place listings, they where not tricked into accepting a market place listing believing it to be Amazons own listing.
-There is nothing to suggest beyond reasonable doubt the customer created the $90 price listing or colluded with the people that created it.

Because of those simple facts there was no "obtaining goods or services by deception" or "false representation" and therefore no fraud

You're the one claiming things beyond the facts, you haven't proven anything at all. Actually you have not even attempted it, the other guy claiming fraud at least made the attempt. It was unsupported but the attempt was at least made, you just keep insisting you're right "just because" and claimed to have proven it when you have not.

Six simple facts, fully supported by the available evidence. Can you refute even one of them? I have been repeating myself attempting to simplify and clarify them for you, at least as much as can do before being condescending by making it insulting to your level of intelligence but your argument has degenerated from "its fraud because I said it is" to "I'm saying its fraud because I already said its fraud and that other guy said its fraud".

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I don't have to do anything. You were there the whole time. You've been repeating yourself because you're repeating stuff you already had been corrected on. You're not getting anywhere because you were already explained to throughout this thread. Trying to argue the discussion both Zach and I had put forth now doesn't work. You're only saying 'No, I didn't get proven wrong' when you were. Everything after that makes no difference, just retreading on what's already been said. I am under no obligation to do the same. You see, all the work's been handled already. You tried to fit the facts to the beliefs, but then more facts were presented to you to change what you believed to be true. You were unable to refute them with other facts, and so the belief you held became untrue. This cannot change.

 

[J Tyran]

Snip

I don't have to do anything. You were there the whole time. You've been repeating yourself because you're repeating stuff you already had been corrected on. You're not getting anywhere because you were already explained to throughout this thread. Trying to argue the discussion both Zach and I had put forth now doesn't work. You're only saying 'No, I didn't get proven wrong' when you were. Everything after that makes no difference, just retreading on what's already been said. I am under no obligation to do the same. You see, all the work's been handled already. You tried to fit the facts to the beliefs, but then more facts were presented to you to change what you believed to be true. You were unable to refute them with other facts, and so the belief you held became untrue. This cannot change.

Thank you for conceding, I only asked you to refute any one of the six simple facts yet you refuse. You personally put nothing forth and the other poster managed to find a single screenshot that didn't support the argument.

Six simple points, thats all and you are refusing to address them. Thats a tacit concession right there, you might be trying to say "I wont answer them" but what you are really saying is "I cannot answer them".

 

[FalloutJack]

Heh

I'm sorry, but you conceded a long time ago. Nobody's going to believe anything otherwise. Hell, by your definition, you've been saying 'I can't answer that' for the last page and a half. So for that, I accept your apology.

 

[J Tyran]

Heh

I'm sorry, but you conceded a long time ago. Nobody's going to believe anything otherwise. Hell, by your definition, you've been saying 'I can't answer that' for the last page and a half. So for that, I accept your apology.

Yet another strawman, I guess you are a last word kind of poster. Well you have my blessing, have it hoss and have fun!

 

[FalloutJack]

Nope

Dude, you've been doing that the entire time! Look at what you write!

 

[TakeyB0y2]

I'm kind of surprised they just take your word like that.

I know Best Buy has their employees hop on their computer before they do the match (I assume they are going on amazon to check but I suppose they could just be putting on a show). Seems strange that Walmart wouldn't do the most basic amount of work to check those numbers...

Technology kinda gets in the way of that as well. I don't know if Walmarts in the states are the same as they are up here in Canada, but all the checkout counters here are VERY basic. Now I know when I go to the Bestbuys here all their registers use computers with internet access so employees can actually just look things up online from their tills, but at Walmart the tills only have basic checkout stuff. Not even the electronics department has computers for employee use. It actually kinda amazes me how behind in technology a lot of stores are, especially stores like Walmart.