Only 1 VW Camper poly per household via [email protected]

TheLoneTensor

Retailers swap-out/raincheck promos all the time, at least in the US. TRU, Target, etc. It does take legwork sometimes though, and you may have to call, or discuss further with a supervisor if you're in person at the store.

Now, you won't get a retailer to match a promo of another retailer, whether they match prices or not. That just doesn't happen.

SirKevbags

@cheshirecat VW poly rights and wrongs. Pyrex dishes. Sodastreams. All well and good but what happened about the Top Trumps!?

maques

Phonebooth said:

maques said:

jdylak said:

Earlier question: is it ok to be mad if they ran out? Nope. Also stated "while supplies last".

Question slightly modified: "Shall I be notified if stock runs out - before shipping and allowing me to decide to go on or cancel?"

Question modified slightly again: Should I be angry that my (first qualifying) order failed to yield a promo because stock ran out (quicker because some scammed the system).

No, could we remove the "angerness/feeling" factors and stay objective?

If the checkout/stock managemet system worked in sync with the fine print, then there would be no way to "scam the system", nor to "get disappointed".
This can only be fixed by LEGO, if not, then scams and dissapointments will happen, which hurt the customer base.

Hardrada

Phonebooth said:

maques said:

jdylak said:

Earlier question: is it ok to be mad if they ran out? Nope. Also stated "while supplies last".

Question slightly modified: "Shall I be notified if stock runs out - before shipping and allowing me to decide to go on or cancel?"

Question modified slightly again: Should I be angry that my (first qualifying) order failed to yield a promo because stock ran out (quicker because some scammed the system).

Scam the system? Beg your pardon but it's not the buyer adding the promo to the order but the site automatically. You can't even remove it from your cart. So if I buy twice during this month then I automatically become a scammer if the second poly is sent out, too? What would a righteous buyer like you do? Phone them and ask them to remove it from the order before it is processed?

Phonebooth

^I thought this was a legitimate question, and to be fair, I have no idea what 'angerness' is...

I'll modify it again: Should I be angry that my (first qualifying) order failed to yield a promo because stock ran out (when people clearly try to bypass the system... and then complain that it's the system's fault... and then argue legality about T&Cs...)?

cheshirecat

SirKevbags said:

@cheshirecat VW poly rights and wrongs. Pyrex dishes. Sodastreams. All well and good but what happened about the Top Trumps!?

The wife said no! i thought TMNT top trumps would be good in a party bag, apparently not!

Legoboy

Hardrada said:

Phonebooth said:

maques said:

jdylak said:

Earlier question: is it ok to be mad if they ran out? Nope. Also stated "while supplies last".

Question slightly modified: "Shall I be notified if stock runs out - before shipping and allowing me to decide to go on or cancel?"

Question modified slightly again: Should I be angry that my (first qualifying) order failed to yield a promo because stock ran out (quicker because some scammed the system).

Scam the system? Beg your pardon but it's not the buyer adding the promo to the order but the site automatically. You can't even remove it from your cart. So if I buy twice during this month then I automatically become a scammer if the second poly is sent out, too? What would a righteous buyer like you do? Phone them and ask them to remove it from the order before it is processed?

Definitely not an antagonistic statement, you are right, but if I wasn't on a mission to secure a second poly, I would wait until the following month and secure the next promo poly with my next [email protected] purchase. Not all always practical but definitely a better choice to wait if not attempting to 'scam the system'. :o)

Dad

Ok...Spoke to customer services because my second order didn't have one. 20 minute conversation where I was put on hold for at least 5 minutes

But I can hand on heart say that I didn't know promos were one per household.
Should I have know? Probably, if it is in there terms and conditions. ( Still haven't read them )

They said that sometimes they are one per household and sometimes one per order. When I quizzed them about the free poly showing in my order they stated that was an order acknowledgement, NOT an order confirmation and it had been manually removed but they do not check all orders.

I said that I should have been given the chance to cancel and I would have probably placed ten orders this month had I have received a free poly with each one but now wont be doing so. There response was that ' that was unfortunate'.

After speaking with a supervisor they accepted I didn't know that it was 1 per household limit and they would like to send me out a poly but can't send them without an order. They gave me 200 additional VIP points because somewhere along the line I said that I would clearly have waited until October to order if I knew I wasn't going to get the poly.

Fair enough, it's not what I wanted but so be it. They were quite strong though and it is only because I kept stressing that they had not given me chance to cancel the order that they bent a little. They were taking a stance on the issue.

I have no issue in the future because now I am aware of the T and C's. It will change my buying habits though.

maques

Phonebooth said:

I'll modify it again: Should I be angry that my (first qualifying) order failed to yield a promo because stock ran out (when people clearly try to bypass the system... and then complain that it's the system's fault... and then argue legality about T&Cs...)?

The question has two different parts.
"Should you be angry if something goes out..." - I planned to get 41999 and it ran out faster than I thought.
Am I "angry"? No.
Would I be angry if I had an order confirmation, then it got cancelled? A little more...
Would I be angry if I had an order confirmation with a keychain and then the 41999 would get cancelled and I got shipped the keychain only along with a shipping cost (as order would go below the free shipping limit) and this would happen without contacting me first? Yes, very.

As for the second part, if the promo stock runs out then I could also question why LEGO didn't make more. If they don't make enough, they help creating secondary market and resellers, hoarders, etc. Combining these, I'm confused what LEGO wants...

maques

Dad said:

Ok...Spoke to customer services because my second order didn't have one. 20 minute conversation where I was put on hold for at least 5 minutes ...

So making the checkout system in sync with the "fine print" would off-load customer service too...

SirKevbags

cheshirecat said:

SirKevbags said:

@cheshirecat VW poly rights and wrongs. Pyrex dishes. Sodastreams. All well and good but what happened about the Top Trumps!?

The wife said no! i thought TMNT top trumps would be good in a party bag, apparently not!

Yet more evidence, if this thread is not enough that the world is going bonkers.

rocao

maques said:

Would I be angry if I had an order confirmation with a keychain and then the 41999 would get cancelled and I got shipped the keychain only along with a shipping cost (as order would go below the free shipping limit) and this would happen without contacting me first? Yes, very.

FWIW, in previous instances I've had where parts of my order were cancelled such that the total fell below the threshold required for free shipping, I was still given free shipping. I believe I had to call to get it refunded, but they absolutely acknowledged I shouldn't be responsible for shipping.

CCC

Pfffft. I didn't even bother making an order this time. The poly is not that great. They didn't even chrome the front.

CCC

So I wonder how people would feel if there was a 25% discount instead of a free poly. One discounted order per household in the small print. Yet the system still registers a discount on second and further orders placed later in the month. Yet when they are processed the discounts are removed. So an order that Lego told you was going to cost £150 is actually charged at £200, without telling you. How many people saying you have to read the small print would be happy with that?

Legoboy

rocao said:

FWIW, in previous instances I've had where parts of my order were cancelled such that the total fell below the threshold required for free shipping, I was still given free shipping. I believe I had to call to get it refunded, but they absolutely acknowledged I shouldn't be responsible for shipping.

I'm not sure they'd legally be able to charge you for the shipping in that instance so no wonder they didn't put up a fight. I would have expected the shipping to seen as a product as such. If you had authorised them to take payment for Items 1-4 in your order with shipping (item 5) at nil charge at the bottom, I can't see how they could increase the price of item 5 at a later date without authority - even if one of the 4 items had been removed from the order.

OT, sorry. :o)

Legoboy

CCC said:

Pfffft. I didn't even bother making an order this time. The poly is not that great. They didn't even chrome the front.

That deserves an 'abuse'.....but I won't! :o)

What are you on about? It's one of the best, if not THE best poly giveaways from [email protected]! :oO

maques

rocao said:

maques said:

Would I be angry if I had an order confirmation with a keychain and then the 41999 would get cancelled and I got shipped the keychain only along with a shipping cost (as order would go below the free shipping limit) and this would happen without contacting me first? Yes, very.

FWIW, in previous instances I've had where parts of my order were cancelled such that the total fell below the threshold required for free shipping, I was still given free shipping. I believe I had to call to get it refunded, but they absolutely acknowledged I shouldn't be responsible for shipping.

I had an order where they limited the number of the sets I ordered and I got charged with the shipping cost.
Also heard from others who ordered Minecraft+fillers and since they already ordered MC earlier, it was "over the limit per person", removed as such and only the "fillers" stayed+got the shipping costs.

princedraven

Limits are there for a reason.

cheshirecat

^^ good? ;-)

maques

princedraven said:

Limits are there for a reason.

Yes, and the system is bad, if it can't manage them.

cheshirecat

Or are people bad for abusing them, and rubbish for failing at it?

maques

cheshirecat said:

^^ good? ;-)

I'm not sure which part shall that refer to, but for the record, the item I ordered had a limit of 99 (battlepack), then they said I must be a reseller to order that many and limited to 3.
So I got the rest from other places, that means less profit margin for LEGO. (Not like LEGO, me or anyone else around would care.)

maques

cheshirecat said:

Or are people bad for abusing them, and rubbish for failing at it?

Like I said earlier, LEGO could fix this and would not be "abused" - neither on purpose, not "by accident". (See "Dad"'s story on his "abuse").

rocao

maques said:

I had an order where they limited the number of the sets I ordered and I got charged with the shipping cost.
Also heard from others who ordered Minecraft+fillers and since they already ordered MC earlier, it was "over the limit per person", removed as such and only the "fillers" stayed+got the shipping costs.

I see. I think that you would have been refunded the shipping if you contacted customer service.

maques said:

I'm not sure which part shall that refer to, but for the record, the item I ordered had a limit of 99 (battlepack), then they said I must be a reseller to order that many and limited to 3.

Did they actually say "You must be a reseller" or is that what you read into the situation?

princedraven

So you are a self confessed reseller (50+ Battlepacks).
You wanted multiple of the hottest poly promo (possibly ever). Even when you are aware of the limit.

Lego are clamping down on resellers.

Sounds like they are doing the right thing (for them) by removing your additional Poly's.

maques

rocao said:

I see. I think that you would have been refunded the shipping if you contacted customer service.

Could be. I'm not a "hang on the phone with the CS" kind of guy.

rocao said:

Did they actually say "You must be a reseller" or is that what you read into the situation?

Yes they did. I ordered 50+

rocao

^ As an alternative, you could email them. If you're just saying you can't be bothered in general or your time is worth more than that, I understand, but I think that should temper how "very angry" you'd be in the hypothetical situation.

How did they communicate "You must be a reseller": a phone call, an email? From previous accounts, people have been asked if they were resellers, not told. I'm curious to hear about your exchange.

LegoFanTexas

Dad said:

They were taking a stance on the issue.

I have no issue in the future because now I am aware of the T and C's. It will change my buying habits though.

Fair enough.

TLG has decided to take a stand, that is their right. You have said it will change your buying habits, that is your right.

The chips will fall where they will and we shall see what happens...

LegoFanTexas

CCC said:

So I wonder how people would feel if there was a 25% discount instead of a free poly. One discounted order per household in the small print. Yet the system still registers a discount on second and further orders placed later in the month. Yet when they are processed the discounts are removed. So an order that Lego told you was going to cost £150 is actually charged at £200, without telling you. How many people saying you have to read the small print would be happy with that?

That also strikes me as being illegal, but perhaps it depends on what country you're in.

I do think that specific situation would cause much more of an uproar than a polybag would.

princedraven

@CCC I think they are quite significantly different situations.
Giving a free gift, while stocks last, and altering the cost of an item are not really the same thing.

LegoFanTexas

Legoboy said:

I'm not sure they'd legally be able to charge you for the shipping in that instance so no wonder they didn't put up a fight.

When a company starts getting on about what is "legal" and what isn't and they are complying with the letter of the law...

Then perhaps they have missed the point. Consumers want to feel good about their purchases, if they keep getting quoted terms and conditions, at some point it becomes unpleasant.

Whatever happened to, "Only the best is good enough."?

Legoboy

LegoFanTexas said:

CCC said:

So I wonder how people would feel if there was a 25% discount instead of a free poly. One discounted order per household in the small print. Yet the system still registers a discount on second and further orders placed later in the month. Yet when they are processed the discounts are removed. So an order that Lego told you was going to cost £150 is actually charged at £200, without telling you. How many people saying you have to read the small print would be happy with that?

That also strikes me as being illegal, but perhaps it depends on what country you're in.

Depends on the T&Cs I guess. It will be the credit card T&Cs that would protect the purchaser in that instance I'd imagine. ;o)

Dad

Hey everyone, As much as I am disgruntled I can't get as many polybags as I wanted for free, and as great as it is, I'm going to bed now, and on my way there I'm going in my little girls room and I'll give her a kiss goodnight. And at that moment in time I won't be thinking about anything else other than her. It's a great polybag, but lets not forget what's really important.

CCC

LegoFanTexas said:

CCC said:

So I wonder how people would feel if there was a 25% discount instead of a free poly. One discounted order per household in the small print. Yet the system still registers a discount on second and further orders placed later in the month. Yet when they are processed the discounts are removed. So an order that Lego told you was going to cost £150 is actually charged at £200, without telling you. How many people saying you have to read the small print would be happy with that?

That also strikes me as being illegal, but perhaps it depends on what country you're in.

I do think that specific situation would cause much more of an uproar than a polybag would.

princedraven said:

@CCC I think they are quite significantly different situations.
Giving a free gift, while stocks last, and altering the cost of an item are not really the same thing.

Very (the company) did something very similar. They issued one use coupons to specific people which turned out their software treated as multi use by anybody. In their T&C they state that full price will be charged were coupons are used fraudulently. So many people placed orders, got a discount and then got a bigger bill than expected some time later once they had started using the products. I think the result was that Very was legally entitled to do this, but they refunded for good will reasons.

This is not giving a free gift while it lasts - they are not removing them due to no stock. They are removing them from orders due to limits they impose in their T&C even though their software offers it to the consumer.

If I was offered a discount in a second order I would assume it was valid, just as I would assume I would get a second poly if Lego added it. I would at least expect to be told of a change in my order if Lego chooses to remove something or removes a discount code.

princedraven

Seem's like we are going around in circles. I think I will take a leaf out of @Dad 's book.

mressin

Ok, two part post. Here in narrative:

You: "Hey, that poly over there, I get one when I buy for GBP 50?"
Store clerk: "Yes, that is correct, sir."
You: "Will I get two when I buy the Creator Camper and the Technic Race Car?"
Store clerk: "Yes, of course."
You: "Ok! One Creator Camper and one Technic Race Car, please!"
Store clerk: "Coming right up!"
(Store clerk gets your items. You pay by card. Store clerk gives you the Lego shopping bag with your items and one VW camper poly in it.)
You: "Oh, excuse me, there is a VW camper poly missing."
Store clerk: "Oh, that is perfectly correct because...

a) "... we're out of stock. Sorry."
b) "... the fine print of the ad over there, which you might or might not have seen, specifically states that it is only one poly per household."

So, maybe there are people who accept a) or b) as a conclusion of this transaction, but I will go with

c) "... I made a mistake. Here is the second poly."

mressin

Or to take a more technical look at it:

It's ok to wish that TLG hands out only one, just as it's ok to want several, or to resell, or or or. Another thing is whether what TLG are doing is legally ok. And as much as I like Lego, I really wish somebody took them to small claims court over this because TLG just don't have a leg to stand on.

1. Let's check the TLG T&Cs:
a) If you still doubt a purchase is a contract, TLG themselves call it so. (Among others: "You have the right to withdraw from this contract within 90 days...")
b) Nothing in the T&Cs says anything about promotional conditions, certain items being one per household only, etc.
c) Even if it was in the contract, the invoice is also part of the contract, and ambiguities in a contract are to be interpreted to benefit the party which did not draft it.

2. "But what if stock ran out?"
a) But stock hasn't run out.
b) They can produce more. They are Lego, not some hillbilly BrickLink nerd.
c) If somebody continues to actively promote something (website) when they know they can't deliver, they are liable to false advertisement. And that brings me to...

3. Yes, the advertisement fine print states that it's only 1 camper poly per household, only as long as stock lasts, and so on.
However, this is part of the ad and meant to protect TLG from claims of false advertisement.
E.g. if somebody placed ten orders on lego.com (or went to the store and prepared ten orders) and then learned that he would only get one poly because they had gone out of stock, then without the provision, this would-be customer could claim false advertising.
The fine print of the ad is not the T&Cs of a purchase. In fact, T&Cs supersede anything that has been advertised. Because a customer can't be expected to search through advertisement fine print to make sure something was legitimate. In fact, it is entirely possible to place an order without the advertisement fine print ever being displayed.

It's worth remembering that the camper poly promotion is not a reward for customers, but an incentive to place orders of GBP 50 or more in September. It's not a gift, it's TLG's part of a bargain.

4. Some more interesting tidbits from the T&C:
a) "If we discover an error in the price of goods you have ordered we will inform you as soon as possible and give you the option of reconfirming your order at the correct price or canceling it."
b) "LEGO defines retailers or business owners/companies as those who place orders where the items/products cannot be expected to be ordered for personal use. In these circumstances LEGO can cancel the order without being liable in any way."

Based on this, I would expect Lego to get in touch prior to removing the camper poly, or cancel the order if they felt they were going to a reseller, etc.

So, I really don't understand how there can be any sympathy with TLG here. Morally, what they are doing is generally not right. Legally, what they are doing is certainly not right. It does not even abide by their own standards. And still, so many of you go "Yay TLG, go go go"? I mean, c'mon, I get it that some people are jealous or begrudging towards resellers, but this is really just a question of customer protection. A company going around and randomly changing orders? Really? What if it happened to little Timmy?

Oh wait, right. Lego won't sell to little Timmies below the age of 18...

cheshirecat

^ with respect i think youre arguing an argument that doesnt exist, weve all said that lego should sort the site out so polys arent added, weve all said, and i dont see anywhere that lego have refused this, that lego should and presumably will accept a return if its requested with them paying postage. It would be good if they got in touch if a poly was removed, but again i have had plenty of experiences of promo items being swapped etc by other retailers and never once been contacted before hand. And obviously a sale is a contract, the issue is at what point that contract comes into being and on what basis. The common misconception is that its when you click checkout or when the money leaves your account, in the UK at least this isnt the case.

legally im sure youre right if it went to court the customer would win, but win what? A free return is what and guess what we have no experience to say that isnt already being allowed. What has been said is if you are aware of the limit and go ahead safe in the knowledge that you can get a free return then thats a litle sad. Its also likely to have a knock on impact on all of us, when they decide free postage is too costly, too easily abused, when they only give us GS polys and not ones like the VW etc.

As an aside, enough with the reseller jealousy line, i thought wed put that to bed long ago. Were all big buyers of lego and its fairly safe to say you cant do that without a fairly decent financial footing. As an example im almost exactly opposite of some resellers as I will happily give my kid a #41999 this christmas irrespective of its value.

cheshirecat

And to return to a previous topic, if Lego did sort out the site so polys only added once, would someone who used a different [email protected] account but with the same address to circumvent the limit have good reason to be upset if their poly was removed?

rocao

I only starting reading this thread this morning. I went back and removed portions of the conversation that were personal bickering more than they were about the limit on the VW polybag.

I trust we can continue to confine our debate to this all-important topic and give it the necessary attention it deserves.

mressin

cheshirecat said:

And obviously a sale is a contract, the issue is at what point that contract comes into being and on what basis. The common misconception is that its when you click checkout or when the money leaves your account, in the UK at least this isnt the case.

The contract comes into force the moment they make an effort to deliver. At that point they have obviously accepted it. From then on, pacta sunt servanda, contracts are to be fulfilled.

cheshirecat said:

legally im sure youre right if it went to court the customer would win, but win what? A free return is what

No, a VW camper poly is what, and maybe a bit of compensation for your trouble, probably in the area of GBP 200 or so. If TLG continues its refusal to deliver, then it will be more.

A contract is a binding agreement and you can't just change your mind, walk away from it, or modify it without the other parties' consent. That defeats the purpose of contracts. Some people with large legal departments behind them sometimes forget that, but we without said legal departments must not.

cheshirecat said:

And to return to a previous topic, if Lego did sort out the site so polys only added once, would someone who used a different [email protected] account but with the same address to circumvent the limit have good reason to be upset if their poly was removed?

With respect, I think you're arguing an argument that doesn't exist. I've been told that we've all said that Lego should get in touch if a poly was removed, or will accept a return if it's requested with them paying postage?

scnr;

Seriously, though: They either deliver the whole order, or nothing. Contract. See above.

Brickarmor

cheshirecat said:

And to return to a previous topic, if Lego did sort out the site so polys only added once, would someone who used a different [email protected] account but with the same address to circumvent the limit have good reason to be upset if their poly was removed?

On the first or second order?

;-)

mountebank

Imagine if all this energy had gone into written complaints sent to TLG. Still, I suppose it's possible that someone on TLG might read through it and decide to act.

cheshirecat

mressin said:

Seriously, though: They either deliver the whole order, or nothing. Contract. See above.

Interesting, so even where lego have fixed their site so that it works in line with the offer terms you still blame lego for people circumventing the system.

princedraven

I cannot believe this is still going on....
It is clear on TLG's site, it is a known limit for some time, it is EVEN the title of this damn thread.
How can people still believe they are in the right to demand more than 1??

When there is a store opening and they give out 3300003-1: LEGO Brand Retail Store and it is one per household do you guys complain in store? Or maybe take your lawyer with you when you go shopping?

Again, TLG limited people to 2 per customer on 41999 and some said "well its TLG's fault they should have limited to 1".
TLG limit this to 1 per customer and now the same individuals say "well that is not enforceable anyway".
They just can't win...

This is a tiny little plastic toy, why can't you just accept that you only get one FOR FREE and move on?

@mressin Your claim that a customer would win a legal case and win a VW camper (+ compensation) is not very realistic. On the absolutely miniscule chance that someone would take this anywhere and win, the VW poly would have been out of stock for a long while.

Also you claim that they can produce more is nothing more than an opinion, you have zero facts to base that on. TLG are in contract with VW for this item, you have no idea of the terms, conditions, limits etc that go with this agreement between them.

cheshirecat

There is also a much bigger legal impedance. In US, UK and Australian law (and likely others) if one party enters (the AFOL in this case) into a contract with another party ([email protected] in this case) knowing that the first party has made a mistake (included a free poly when they shouldn't have) then there is no enforceable contract. This is known as (palpable) unilateral mistake. (there is an exclusion to this, which is where the mistake is that the mistaken party just doesn't know the true value of what they have, that is fine and isn't covered)

Now again, its not likely to be used over a free polybag but then if you took that to small claims court I suspect you wouldn't be treated particularly well either, but the laws the law. In the UK unilateral mistake was used to let off a retailer who mistakenly priced items at £99.99 instead of £999.99.

So, LEGO should still from a CS point of view handle this better, and the above only applies to those that know of LEGO's mistake (i.e. they have read the small print, been told of the limit here etc) but hopefully now we can put the 'i have a contract, LEGO must fulfil this contract' stuff to bed.

CCC

In a case where both parties are in the wrong, an argument about which party is more wrong / right will always be cyclical.

What it does show though is that Lego doesn't care that much about customer experience. Otherwise they would have an order system that does not trick their customers into thinking they will get a second gift - especially as they have nearly always given the second one in the past. Other companies may remove or substitute freebies, so that puts Lego into the same league as Argos, Tesco, etc on this issue.

jadeirene

For what it's worth, I'm currently looking at the [email protected] catalog (US version) and there is no mention of a one per household policy in the fine print. It does have the legal disclaimer that "The LEGO Group reserves the right to cancel or modify these promotions at any time without advance notice."

cheshirecat

^ It is in the UK catalogue.

CCC

cheshirecat said:

There is also a much bigger legal impedance. In US, UK and Australian law (and likely others) if one party enters (the AFOL in this case) into a contract with another party ([email protected] in this case) knowing that the first party has made a mistake (included a free poly when they shouldn't have) then there is no enforceable contract. This is known as (palpable) unilateral mistake. (there is an exclusion to this, which is where the mistake is that the mistaken party just doesn't know the true value of what they have, that is fine and isn't covered)

Now again, its not likely to be used over a free polybag but then if you took that to small claims court I suspect you wouldn't be treated particularly well either, but the laws the law. In the UK unilateral mistake was used to let off a retailer who mistakenly priced items at £99.99 instead of £999.99.

So, LEGO should still from a CS point of view handle this better, and the above only applies to those that know of LEGO's mistake (i.e. they have read the small print, been told of the limit here etc) but hopefully now we can put the 'i have a contract, LEGO must fulfil this contract' stuff to bed.

Again, it is highly unlikely to end up in court ... But if it did isn't past behaviour taken into account. Lego have been saying one per household for ages on their promos and yet have consistently broken their own T&C sending multiples for multiple orders. The customer then has a right to expect it here, even if it against the T&C, based purely on lego's past behaviour.