The company should eat the loss.
It is great PR, shows that they stand behind their advertised prices, and builds excitement future marketing campaigns.
In the us i believe there is well established law that once you complete a buy-sell transaction then it is permanent, unless there was something illegal about the sale such as if the item sold had previously been stolen
Same in the EU and most non-EU European countries.
If a sale is valid and the transaction is complete (aka both payment has been made in a non-reversible manner AND the product has been handed over), then the store cannot compel the buyer to return the product or pay more for it.
They can, however, ask for it, legally speaking. There’s no law preventing the request itself, but the request has no legal standing meaning you don’t have to comply with it. It’s about as enforceable as someone randomly knocking on your door and asking for money.
They could close those accounts and bar people from using their system in an attempt to strong arm them.
Honestly, not a strong penalty for a $17 iPad. But there are no real legal consequences.
That would be incredibly illegal.
There was a legitimate sale, without any breach of ToS. And while it is up to Apple to decide who can and can’t use their ecosystem (although given their size, I strongly believe that regulations need to be made to avoid replatforming people), rendering not just a device but potentially multiple devices of a number of users over a few hundred dollars mistake would open Apple up to a lawsuit that would be in the thousands for most partakers - as most people only buy iPads as a late addition to their Apple ecosystem, meaning Apple just locked them out of their legitimate phones, laptops, watches, TVs, etc.
Not to mention that this was a third party retailer, who can’t just willy-nilly block Apple accounts…
From the article, it isn’t Apple that is asking for the money. It’s the retailer. You just won’t be able to shop at their store anymore.
And I’m not aware of any laws related to preventing a company to refuse service for any reason (other than protected classes in America.) (And yes, I know this is outside of the US, so please correct me if you know of a specific one in the EU.)
In Belgium the sale would be invalid because a company is not allowed to sell at loss. This is an anti-competitive measure to protect amall business from corpos
That’s an ill-thought out law. Bigger companies can run at cost or reduced profit and still out compete smaller companies due to economies of scale and diversified income streams.
What does a grocery store do with food that’s got to go and isn’t selling? I like the idea of dismantling the megacorp strategy, but I can’t help thinking it would lead to a lot of unnecessary waste as companies just throw things out instead of trying to recoup a small fraction of their investment.
I’m fairly certain that that only applies to standard pricing, not discounts and promotions that run for a limited time.
You’re correct, but only in certain circumstances. This has changed recently.
Otherwise Steam sales would be illegal in Belgium
Hell, Chinese retailers would send me a notification about this $17 iPad to refund me $0.30 because the price dropped. They need to get with the times. Nobody even uses pads other than Twitter addicts, babies, and old people.
plz :(
-Mediaworld
Mistakes were made.
In this economy?
No.
