 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, there's a thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
"In the United States, [...] no cause of action will exist if the
purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised."
"In England and Wales it is banned [...] Breaking this law can result in
a criminal prosecution, an unlimited fine and two years in jail."
You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
apparently not...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2012 14:15, Invisible wrote:
> Well, there's a thing...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
>
> "In the United States, [...] no cause of action will exist if the
> purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised."
>
> "In England and Wales it is banned [...] Breaking this law can result in
> a criminal prosecution, an unlimited fine and two years in jail."
>
> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
> apparently not...
Wasn't there some weeks ago a link to a note that Fox news was banned in
Canada because of misleading journalism while it of course is completely
legal to broadcast in the US. I think there is a trend here.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
>> apparently not...
>
> Wasn't there some weeks ago a link to a note that Fox news was banned in
> Canada because of misleading journalism while it of course is completely
> legal to broadcast in the US. I think there is a trend here.
As best as I can tell, it is completely legal in the UK to print utter
nonsense and claim that it is fact or even "news".
Unless you claim something untrue about a /person/ or /financial
entity/. Then they can choose to sue you. But if you write that, say,
MMR causes autism, that's 100% legal. Nobody can sue you for that... If
you say that /they claimed/ this, they can sue you for lying about what
they said. But other than that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-1-2012 17:08, Invisible wrote:
>>> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
>>> apparently not...
>>
>> Wasn't there some weeks ago a link to a note that Fox news was banned in
>> Canada because of misleading journalism while it of course is completely
>> legal to broadcast in the US. I think there is a trend here.
>
> As best as I can tell, it is completely legal in the UK to print utter
> nonsense and claim that it is fact or even "news".
I know. But could you start a broadcasting station with the intention to
be a companion to the late News of the World?
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2012 9:08 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
>>> apparently not...
>>
>> Wasn't there some weeks ago a link to a note that Fox news was banned in
>> Canada because of misleading journalism while it of course is completely
>> legal to broadcast in the US. I think there is a trend here.
>
> As best as I can tell, it is completely legal in the UK to print utter
> nonsense and claim that it is fact or even "news".
>
> Unless you claim something untrue about a /person/ or /financial
> entity/. Then they can choose to sue you. But if you write that, say,
> MMR causes autism, that's 100% legal. Nobody can sue you for that... If
> you say that /they claimed/ this, they can sue you for lying about what
> they said. But other than that...
Yeah. They could go a long way in helping things, or at least giving
skeptics a lot of grins, if they had to mark Fox like news shows, scams,
and/or crazy ass shit like a recent thing ($5 to stream it, or $100 for
their book) involving anarchic-capatolism, American style Liberianism,
government conspiracy, and the magic of toroidal quantum, something or
others, to provide "free energy", by requiring they are labelled the
same way as some laws do psychics and palm readers, i.e. "For
entertainment only." lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2012 8:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, there's a thing...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
>
> "In the United States, [...] no cause of action will exist if the
> purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised."
>
> "In England and Wales it is banned [...] Breaking this law can result in
> a criminal prosecution, an unlimited fine and two years in jail."
>
> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
> apparently not...
In some areas of the U.S. the merchant is required to issue a rain check
to any customer who shows up during the advertised sale period, enabling
them to buy a like item when it does come into stock. In some areas
putting the phrase "limited quantity" in the advertisement relieves the
merchant of this obligation (but it also gives the customer warning that
there may not be any when they get to the store).
It goes without saying that consumers already have a remedy for
bait-and-switch merchants: Refuse to buy their merchandise.
Regards,
John
(who is not a lawyer)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2012 10:13 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 8:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Well, there's a thing...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
>>
>> "In the United States, [...] no cause of action will exist if the
>> purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised."
>>
>> "In England and Wales it is banned [...] Breaking this law can result in
>> a criminal prosecution, an unlimited fine and two years in jail."
>>
>> You would have thought deliberate deception was illegal everywhere, but
>> apparently not...
>
> In some areas of the U.S. the merchant is required to issue a rain check
> to any customer who shows up during the advertised sale period, enabling
> them to buy a like item when it does come into stock. In some areas
> putting the phrase "limited quantity" in the advertisement relieves the
> merchant of this obligation (but it also gives the customer warning that
> there may not be any when they get to the store).
>
> It goes without saying that consumers already have a remedy for
> bait-and-switch merchants: Refuse to buy their merchandise.
>
Some do both. Policy where I work now is, "If it is in the ad, you can
get a raincheck. It its not an ad item, its probably being sold to
remove it from stock, or the like, and therefor it probably *won't* be
in stock again. Also, in some cases, like when we are selling seasonal
stuff, where the stock in the warehouse will run out, and there is
virtually no chance of it being replaced in a timely manner, as a
result, its pretty much necessary to say, "Until supplies last".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2012 9:13, John VanSickle wrote:
> It goes without saying that consumers already have a remedy for
> bait-and-switch merchants: Refuse to buy their merchandise.
Or just buy what was advertised. The law just says that if you advertise
something cheap, it's not illegal to try to convince the buyer to buy
something more expensive instead. It's only illegal to advertise the cheap
one if you refuse or are unable to sell the cheap one.
I'm honestly unsure how you could even deal with a situation if you
advertised something on sale, then told someone the non-cheap one was
better, and that was illegal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/02/2012 03:04 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 9:13, John VanSickle wrote:
>> It goes without saying that consumers already have a remedy for
>> bait-and-switch merchants: Refuse to buy their merchandise.
>
> Or just buy what was advertised. The law just says that if you advertise
> something cheap, it's not illegal to try to convince the buyer to buy
> something more expensive instead. It's only illegal to advertise the
> cheap one if you refuse or are unable to sell the cheap one.
>
> I'm honestly unsure how you could even deal with a situation if you
> advertised something on sale, then told someone the non-cheap one was
> better, and that was illegal.
To my mind, bait and switch is when you tell somebody they're buying X,
but they're actually buying Y. That seems to me like fraud, and should
be utterly illegal everywhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2012 1:38, Invisible wrote:
> To my mind, bait and switch is when you tell somebody they're buying X, but
> they're actually buying Y. That seems to me like fraud, and should be
> utterly illegal everywhere.
No. Bait and switch is when you advertise nightcrawlers for $0.10/dozen, but
when the customer arrives, you tell him you're all out of worms and all you
have left is electrical control devices that cost close to $3 each.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
