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.
On the latest, it says:
"One free item per transaction" .. I guess I can get as many as I want (yeah!)
but it also says : "Cannot be [...] combined with any other discount, offer or free gift."
So theoretically, it the Mini Camper should not be there or will it be gone from my order even if it is the first one of the month ? And what if I would rather have the camper than the sticker ?
Same for the Clone Trooper and Mini Camper, based on the T&C of each item, they can't be combined. Did any one passing just one order that met the $75+ total and $50+ SW only got one of the two freebies ?
One per household is ridiculous, especially for families that enjoy collecting Lego.... Can you imagine asking your kids to share a SW Lieutenant? I guess there is always Bricklink to get more...
Really? One per household...
Don't believe me? Currently 5 US sellers on BL with 5 or more to sell. Don't even get me started on eBay.
On the other side, what would happen if somebody made the smallest possible order (ca. $8.00 I guess), and after delivery recalls the payment? Would TLC's legal department not send repo eventually?
The point is that TLC will not leave the interpretation of the law to you, the buyer, when their interest is concerned. It does not matter what moral argument you might have, they will stick to the law and their T&Cs. (In fact, the camper ad fine print serves exactly that purpose.)
And that's why TLC must act according to the law as well. So there is a level playing field regardless of financial strength.
If you say you'd rather see TLC circumvent the law in order to get at resellers, that's another way of saying "the end justifies the means", and can be quite dangerous.
Interestingly I noticed on my VIP history on the website the two in store ones are listed but the [email protected] one doesn't have any mention even though the other items are on my transaction history there already.
I wonder if it's something odd like the pickers and packers having a system that alerts them that they shouldn't add the freebie as they scan each item out and some just chuck it in anyway (hence why it doesn't get added to my VIP history) but others are more anal and actually bother to remove it on the system and don't chuck it in making it as random as who picks and packs your delivery?
S&H needs an update, plain and simple.
BTW, there is no Clone Trooper here in Hungary, and if I switch to GB or DE, then there aren't one either (only if I change to US)
(And of course you shall return the +2 extras - or, send them to me, for safe deposit... :-] )
So: "Only the best is good enough(*)"
(*)=excluding our borked webshop, our spelling ("SHEILD" and architecture pamplets to name a few), arrangement of exclusive item distribution on events (like comic con) and some chinese made parts...(**)
(**)=we reserve the right to expand the list...
Besides that, if I'd tell 100 of my friends to make a single order, then T&C would be "honored". But would that be any better...
The abuse part would be the returning if you don't get it which I wouldn't do. I've only ordered stuff I need/want but am intentionally breaking it in $75 orders.
Can't wait until they cut the promos altogether.
(/ Holier than thou mode off)
According to a user here I should only make one purchase this month, otherwise I run the chance of exploiting/abusing TLG's system by getting more than one polybag. Just mentioned it because some think even what you did isn't fine either.
- Someone who knows about the "1 per household" fine print places multiple orders anyway to see if they get multiple polybags.
- Then shopping basket (=TLC) states each time: Yes, you will get multiple polybags.
(By the way, can anybody who had that experience confirm that the return is at TLC's expense? I don't remember reading anything like that in the T&Cs.)
The one circumstance in which I guess the "exploitation" term is warranted, is if somebody already had his order show up without polybag, sends it back, then places another one.
But even in that case, at the same time TLC continues to run an online shop which they know prints orders in a way they are not going to fulfill. Why isn't that objectionable at a corporate level?
If this limit is related to the financial exposure of the promotion, they need to properly build it into the terms. What I mean is: if LBR decided that a purchase of $75 generated enough profit to warrant the cost of the giving the polybag for free, then it should apply to all $75 purchases. If that's too great an exposure, and they were counting on average purchases of, say, ~$150 as a cost:profit goal, then they should make that the minimum spend. Essentially, I feel someone spending $150 should benefit more than someone spending $75, and thus I think it is reasonable for the former to want and more importantly that LBR should expect the former to want to break their purchase into two transactions, if possible.
If this limit is related to a limited number of polybags and the production wasn't purely a financial consideration (i.e. licensing or capacity only allowed limited numbers), then I can understand preventing an entity from getting multiples. If that were the case, they should have chosen something that is enforceable, such as only giving the polybag to VIP members and only giving 1 per account.
However, in light of my criticisms about how this promotion is being handled, I don't think this instance shows:
- unreasonable corporate greed
- a desire to disregard or anger their customer base
- that their e-commerce site is a complete and utter failure
I will also call Microsoft to tell them not to make security patches, but leave their software buggy and blame it on the hackers.
My invoice is:
LEGO set A - $79.99
LEGO set B - $19.99
VW camper - $0.00
Technically, I received everything for which I agreed to pay. LBR appears to have agreed to also send me a VW camper, but their terms also state that it's only 1 per household.
If I know about their terms, is that knowledge enough to eliminate my expectation of receiving one?
If the fine print is available at the time of purchase, does that mean LBR made a good enough effort to inform me?
In the TRU class action suit that was posted, there is a major difference. It was alleged that TRU never had any intention of providing the stated free item, whereas here customers are getting one, but in some instances not more than one.
This is a limited run item.
Due to the licence this item will not be available to buy at any point.
The 1 per household limit is in-store too and staff have been asked to be vigilant (after cases of people making various trips to try to get multiple 41999's from different staff members).
They believe they will certainly give out all stock before the end of the promotion.
The online system is being reviewed with a view to amend the way promotions are handled.
They are concerned about a growing group of customers that make multiple purchases that come in huge waves, ONLY during promotion times, and are again reviewing the best cause of action.
In fairness, I've been very critical about this although I'm not affected (yet) and have in the past received more than my fair share of freebies. I believe TLC is overall a very accommodating and obliging company and a model for good and customer-friendly business practices.
Also, since I know that Lego store employees browse these forums, I hope they won't throw bricks at me next time I visit...
Typically a company will budget x dollars for a promo. If a LEGO promo costs y to produce, then they are constrained to produce x/y promos. They also want the promo to last a reasonable amount of time to reach the widest amount of buyers. Believe it or not, not all buyers are aware of promos long before they arrive and place orders on day one. TLG wants these promos to reach as many casual buyers as well.
Honestly, it seems that very few people have been effected by this, so it is possible that past purchase history or timing of orders has something to do with it. I'm sure TLG doesn't appreciate 5 $75 orders being placed within minutes of each other and would consider enforcing the policy in that circumstance. Whereas placing 5 orders evenly over a 30 day span wouldn't go noticed as that is a more typical buying pattern.
Also, the "promo" item is an incentive. If I don't get any, and prices for an item is higher on [email protected] (which usually are*) than in any other local BM or webshop, then I wonder why would I buy at [email protected]
(*Though I heard this gonna change...)
Also if I am indecisive whether or not I want a set the 2 awesome freebies can make all the difference when it comes to pulling the trigger. Marketing 101 I'm sure...
Making multiple orders for poly's hasnt been a big issue. They still add it to the cart, as well. All of that is THEIR management. Most are not circumventing the limits out of malice...
The only quesitonable action would be to ship their purchases back...however, the consumer would be in their full right, especially if the promo is invoiced. It's an exercise in moral/personal semantics, at this point.
I'll be frank, I only buy from [email protected] if/when:
- There is a meaningful sale (extremely rare)
- A nice promo
- The set is not available elsewhere (but I time these purchases to get the promos I like)
Here [email protected] is very expensive. I can buy every normal set at any time for a ~20% lower price (sometimes even more) from online stores. If I wait for sales then for even less. And it's not only the normal sets, exclusives are also a lot cheaper elsewhere. Just an example: FB, GE, PS are 48990 HUF (~217 USD) on [email protected] while they are 40-42k HUF (177-186 USD) at several online stores. So most of the time it's only the gift that makes [email protected] a meaningful option.
So on one hand it would be great if they fixed their online store to work correctly as intended by the terms and conditions but on the other hand I'd purchase a lot less afterwards. (I'm not a frequent buyer now either though.)
(And it's expensive not mainly because of [email protected], but the 27% worldwide record VAT here :-) But of course, common sets are sold here for much cheaper, but I'm sure that is the case with other countries too.
And yes, you are not alone, it is easy tell just by looking at the Top 25 sellers. For Hungary, currently:
Top1 - DeLorean (not buyable anywhere else here)
Other ones above 10k HUF: 21102 and 21105 Minecrafts (similarly not buyable anywhere else here), then all the rest are "fillers", like: fall scene poly, ice cube tray, pencil holders, brick calendar, 850632 samurai accessory set, XL motor, halloween pumpkin poly, tumblers, some other "crap", and half a dozen keychains... Shows pretty much what it is worth to order from [email protected] here...
The reason being is that you were "enticed" to make the $99.98 worth of purchases because of the "free" promo. Without it, you would not have been as moviated to make those purchases.
So TLG was enriched because of a promise they made and didn't keep.
@wagnerml2 is quite correct on the law here. No, it doesn't. Them adding it to the cart themselves and not giving you a way to remove it, then including it in the order confirmation e-mail they send out, only to remove it before shipping without notice, is a huge mistake on their part. Except sometimes they do get more than one, it isn't consistent.
Not following your own policy consistently is the first step in making your own T&C completely void in a court of law.
There are whole areas of consumer law regarding what can and cannot be done. Keep in mind that just because TLG puts something in their T&C doesn't make it legally enforceable, nor does it mean it trumps everything else.
Keep in mind that when you pay with a credit card, that has T&C as well and TLG agreed to a contract when they setup their credit card merchant account, their own T&C can't override that agreement either.
In short, it really isn't as simple as we'd all like, the law rarely is, but that is because everyone is due their day in court and prior case law has to be added to existing legislative law to come up with a complete picture.
And of course if you get a class action in front of a jury of 12 average people, then all bets are off because they can vote any way they like, regardless of what the T&C might say.
What if the jury decides that [email protected] should be sending out a promo for every $75 spent, even in the same order with no limit? If it gets appealed and upheld, for whatever reason, then [email protected] would have to comply, the court would order them to.
Never, ever bet on how a jury will vote. :) Why do you think most cases settle?
Note - I'm not voting that we should sue, just saying that if someone did and it got class action status, TLG would be wise to settle for fear of getting a worse deal in front of a jury.
If I were a lawyer, I'd have a field day with this one. :) I'd find myself a family of 3 or 4 huge LEGO fans, cute little kids, the family tried to order 2 or 3 times to get each child a set, they were refused, then I'll put them on the stand talking about how they expected it and had their hopes dashed by this big huge company that made a billion dollars in profit last year and didn't think about poor little Timmy.
I'll put some big huge sets up on the table showing what they did buy, then I'll put the little polybag figure next to it and let the jury see the value difference between the "free" item and the "purchased" items (picture DS, PC, and EV stacked up next to the SW polybag figure).
Lets see TLG's lawyer try to rip apart a cute 8 year old girl on the stand over a small polybag promo. :)
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps that wouldn't work, I'll leave it to a real lawyer to say if I'm even close or not. :)
If the buyer is aware of the "1 per household" policy, and they've already placed an order and presumably received one, can they successfully argue that they were enticed?