Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
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.
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...)?
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.
"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...
OT, sorry. :o)
What are you on about? It's one of the best, if not THE best poly giveaways from [email protected]! :oO
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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...
I do think that specific situation would cause much more of an uproar than a polybag would.
Giving a free gift, while stocks last, and altering the cost of an item are not really the same thing.
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."?
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.
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."
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...
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.
I trust we can continue to confine our debate to this all-important topic and give it the necessary attention it deserves.
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. 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?
Seriously, though: They either deliver the whole order, or nothing. Contract. See above.
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.
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.
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.