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

Jawascrump · September 2013

My goodness.. the thread that never ends.
I do admire the "passion" some of you guys have on this topic. (More than a hint of sarcasm in that sentence!)
On a lighter note my two orders came today, both had a VW polybag. I won the Lego lottery!!
I have a gold minifigure key chain on back order... I wonder if that will ship with a VW in too?

mressin · September 2013

For me, this is not really about the camper poly. It's about customer rights.

cheshirecat said:

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.

No. I merely pointed out that they either cancel a contract or fulfill it. If they felt an order was in violations of their T&Cs, they should not deliver at all. They have no right to modify the contract unilaterally to their wishes.

I don't understand how this company behaviour can be condoned. It doesn't matter how this is turned, spun and twisted. A contract is a contract. Take it or leave it.

cheshirecat said:
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 a provision for palpable unilateral mistakes, but it works a bit differently, is not applied by TLG, and wouldn't be applicable anyway:

1. It's a palpable unilateral mistake is if the mistake is palpable to the buyer - if the buyer should reasonably know that TLG made a mistake. For example, if TLG offers to sell 275 Death Stars for GBP 1.00, that is palpable and hence not enforceable, i.e. TLG can either refuse to deliver, or even pick up the Death Stars after they delivered them.

This is not the case here: It is entirely plausible that TLG would send a camper poly. Point in fact, this very thread contains reports of AFOLS who received more than one.
Even if the buyer knew about the ad, he still has two conflicting pieces of information. How would he know that it's not the ad that is wrong? This is an ambiguity on the side of Lego's marketing material and their invoices. At best, the buyer is confused, and that would be TLGs fault, not a palpable unilateral mistake.

The legal idea behind the palpable unilateral mistake is to provide protection against major financial losses or even bancrupcy due to simple errors such as typos, misprints, calculation mistakes, etc.

2. There is a very important distinction between a unilateral mistake and a palpable unilateral mistake:
- unilateral mistake: contract is still valid
- palpable unilateral mistake: contract is void

So, merely making a mistake does not excuse TLG from fulfilling the contract.

Even if this was a palpable unilateral mistake, then TLG should cancel the order. (And to be fair, if they did, I don't think there is anything you can do.) But TLG doesn't cancel the order. TLG fulfills the part it suits them, and refuses to fulfill the rest.

This is the part that bothers me. , where TLG is wrong, and where I can't understand that anyone would defend that behaviour.

princedraven said:
@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.

Not sure what your point is. A court would certainly uphold the claim for a camper and award compensation rather than forcing a reversal, that was my point. TLG's ability to deliver has nothing to do with it. If TLG can't deliver, there'd be additional compensation. Did I really have to spell that out?

princedraven said:
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.

Good point about the contract between VW and Lego. So what do you know for a fact about it?

Interesting, if shit really hit the fan about this and it got in the press, what would VW think? ;)l

TheLoneTensor · September 2013

princedraven said:
I cannot believe this is still going on....

It's still going on because even though most of the original debate has been exhausted, people on both sides continue to present their points, which somewhat repeat their previous points, without any result of the "other" side being convinced to change. Then, people on both sides post things like "I cannot believe this is still going on..." and the thread continues to thrash about.

If we stop trying to convince each other that "I'm right" and "you're wrong," and accept that there will always be opposing views that we can do nothing about, it might just fade to silence, like other contentious threads have in the past.

princedraven · September 2013

I accept that others have other opinions.
I don't accept that people who know the rules come on here to bitch about it if they tried their luck and didn't get what they want. This site has plenty of negativity without that. Here's an idea, call Customer Services and be told by them "It's one per household". Then if you want to call your lawyer do so, and six months from now let us know the outcome...

princedraven · September 2013

@mressin When Cheshire stated they would get the value of a VW i.e. £0 you said no they would get a VW Camper, they clearly will not, that was the point, pretty simple. Spell out whatever you like it will not change the fact.

And I have never claimed to know the agreement between VW and Lego, whereas you stated they could clearly make more. WRONG!

princedraven · September 2013

OK, reality check received thanks fella!
@mressin Please ignore my post/s above, I cannot delete them.

It is what it is, people will do as they feel fit. These are my last comments on the subject, as I was informed, all that this is doing is creating even more negativity, the thing that was winding me up in the first place.

Peace out!

mountebank · September 2013

It's still going on because of this:

http://xkcd.com/386/

CCC · September 2013

As they are sending the second polys to some people, if you want two then the strategy is clearly to place a second order. If they remove the poly, return the order at lego's expense. Then place the same order again, and return it if the poly is missing. Rinse and repeat. Which side will cave in first?

jasor · September 2013

keychaingate all over again.

Brickarmor · September 2013

@mountebank That meme crossed my mind many times!

We do need some ventilation in here, it's become a hothouse of rumors and conflicting information. Or just conflicted opinions. Just because we talk about it (a lot) doesn't mean that it corresponds with reality. It's a boatload of hypotheticals: "IF" they are doing "THIS" "THEN" x, y, and z follow, when really much of it is just our insular commentary on our own shadow puppets.

"The sky is falling!!"

wagnerml2 · September 2013

What @Legofantexas said is absolutely correct. If the item was included in the terms sheet when you executed the purchase, regardless of whether it is an automated process, in the US, they are required to deliver what is on the confirmation sheet regardless of any terms or conditions. They could subsequently cancel the order unilaterally and refund the money, but once they collect the funds and ship, they are required by law to deliver what they promised.

The reason for that is simple. How many people here placed a second order just to see if the Camper van appeared? You them clicked "buy" and paid for the product because the camper van was included in the second order. You then didn't get the camper van, but got the product you would not have otherwise purchased in that order but for the camper van. That is strictly prohibited by consumer laws in the US. I've gotta think it is prohibited in Europe as well.

Dougout · September 2013

CCC said:
As they are sending the second polys to some people, if you want two then the strategy is clearly to place a second order. If they remove the poly, return the order at lego's expense. Then place the same order again, and return it if the poly is missing. Rinse and repeat. Which side will cave in first?

I assume TLG wouldn't really like that. Actually, I have no reason to believe they enjoy trading boxes in at all when they need to pay return shipping. Sure, they will take them and do it with a smile on their face, but this comes back to what I mentioned earlier about being a "bad" customer. Maybe not really a bad customer but at least a needy, pain in the a @#% customer. When a company has to spend extra money on restocking and shipping it is never a plus for them. They only do it to make the customer happy and at some point the relationship can deteriorate and the appeasement of the customer is no longer worth the troubled relationship.

I understand consumerism and entitlement in this country has made people think they are always right, but that is not the case. The reality is people are losing power and businesses are gaining them. Remember, government now thinks corporations are people too. Consumer appeasement is unsustainable and will collapse in the near future especially with emerging Asian markets.

Oh, and I doubt a case over a polybag vs Lego would even make it to court. Why would TLG make a $5 issue even make it to court. Then again, maybe they just let it go forth to watch the plaintiff get scolded by a judge and then laughed out of court by everybody.

wagnerml2 · September 2013

^^ This is the type of thing that class action plaintiff lawyers drool over in the US. Class actions were developed specifically for that reason. While the singular transaction is not worth litigating, when you add that up over hundreds, perhaps thousands of consumers, the unfair advantage to the company becomes apparent. This is why US law allows class actions in consumer cases.

Worst part about class actions is that the plaintiff lawyers don't have to win huge awards for their clients. They only need to recover a nominal award (small gift card or refund) and the court will award ALL attorneys fees (which usually runs into the millions of $$). I had a case with AT&T where the consumers received a $.27 credit on their next phone bill and plaintiffs' attorney recovered $13 million in fees.

Like I said, I defend these cases, I don't file them, but if Lego came to me with this current practice, my advice would be to a) include the camper van if it appeared on the terms sheet or 2) greatly increases the scrutiny on orders where the camper van is being excluded and cancel the order before it ships. Not to do so puts them in peril. Again IMHO.

Dougout · September 2013

^You are extremely exaggerating the 'unfair advantage to the company'. The only people affected were circumventing rules and therefore not justified. So one thousand people join a class action and state what, they need $1,000,000 for injuries? The real loss of product would've amounted $5,000 and TLG could offer that or slightly more compensation.

Considering thousands of real NFL players just won a class action case over REAL BRAIN injuries while the league was evidently covering stuff up and the plaintiffs only won 40% of what they were asking for, I doubt anything like this would go very far at all once the details and rules were laid out to the court.

chromedigi · September 2013

I think what @wagnerml meant by "unfair advantage to the company" is that, in the event of a lawsuit, the company can afford more, and better legal representation than an individual, so class action suits were invented as a way to pool the interests of the plaintiffs.

I doubt that what was being indicated was that this issue is important enough to warrant a suit, but, the thing with lawsuits is that the fact of their existence does not necessarily correlate with their importance or frivolity. I'm sure you can think of lots of dopey examples of suits that people have brought against large corporations in the past (spilling McDonalds coffee in your own lap and then suing, etc.).

chromedigi · September 2013

Taking a small action to try to avoid such suits is not unlike my musing over in the Discounts on Exclusives thread about one possible explanation for TLG's internal gag order, which was wrongly interpreted by some as my having some kind of "agenda."

CCC · September 2013

Dougout said:
^You are extremely exaggerating the 'unfair advantage to the company'. The only people affected were circumventing rules and therefore not justified. So one thousand people join a class action and state what, they need $1,000,000 for injuries? The real loss of product would've amounted $5,000 and TLG could offer that or slightly more compensation.

Considering thousands of real NFL players just won a class action case over REAL BRAIN injuries while the league was evidently covering stuff up and the plaintiffs only won 40% of what they were asking for, I doubt anything like this would go very far at all once the details and rules were laid out to the court.

How exactly were they circumventing rules? Is there a rule that you cannot place two orders in the same month? There is none, therefore no rules broken. However Lego chose to tell the customer that both orders qualified for a free gift. The user does not select it - Lego adds it. I can understand if the customer adds it to their cart then they have added a second freebie that they are not entitled to. But that is not the case. Lego have added it.

If Lego won't sort out their order system to ensure items are not automatically added when they should not, then maybe they should go down the route of making the customer add the freebie, charging for it then giving one rebate per address.

juggles7 · September 2013

"...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'."

Short-sighted of them, and unfortunate for their own bottom line. They'd rather withhold their $5 item and forego a $75 sales, whose profit would be at least $25. They save $5, lose $25. So be it.

Brickarmor · September 2013

There is another solution altogether better than blaming TLG or the promo-hungry shopper and devolving into "one per" restrictions which necessitate order and account monitoring, and the solution hinges on the phrase "while supplies last." TLG makes X-many promos, one per order, and when they're gone (first come, first serve) they instantaneously disappear from the site.

Monitor your inventory, not your shoppers.

chromedigi · September 2013

^ This is how TRU handle their promo polybags. At least near me, they blow out almost immediately. I won't comment on whether this is good or bad, it's merely an observation of fact.

FatMatt · September 2013

^The problem with this is that the far majority would always quickly be gobbled up by resellers (I use that term endearingly:) because it would mean every promotion would be a limited run in quantity rather than time.

Dougout · September 2013

chromedigi said:
I think what @wagnerml meant by "unfair advantage to the company" is that, in the event of a lawsuit, the company can afford more, and better legal representation than an individual, so class action suits were invented as a way to pool the interests of the plaintiffs.

I doubt that what was being indicated was that this issue is important enough to warrant a suit, but, the thing with lawsuits is that the fact of their existence does not necessarily correlate with their importance or frivolity. I'm sure you can think of lots of dopey examples of suits that people have brought against large corporations in the past (spilling McDonalds coffee in your own lap and then suing, etc.).

I'm actually glad you brought this up. This was surely the beginning of what people would call frivolous lawsuits, but when the details of the case are revealed a much more uncaring picture of the company arises.

McDonalds knew that some of its restaurants was serving coffee that was far too hot and it had no label on it's cups saying it was extremely hot. I worked at Dunkin Donuts for a couple years, they use styrofoam cups so people don't burn as easy and they buy much better machines that shut off when the pot is brewed to the right temp.

When the lady went to McDonalds she only asked they pay for her medical expenses, but McDonalds refused even though they knew they weren't supposed to serve coffee immediately after it gets off the burner. After seeing McDonald's complete disregard for the woman's safety and injuries a jury awarded her $3 million which got reduced to $.6 million by a judge. Her medical expenses were $160,000. That means 3rd degree burns to your groin are only worth about half a million. That's a steep price to pay to go sterile and have genital scaring your whole life. I mean do you really think a safe temperature of coffee is going to cause 3rd degree burns on a person even after that person has driven off and started driving?

Looking at the aftermath, McDonalds now competes with many coffee super restaurants like Dunking Donuts and Starbucks. The added customer base interested just in their coffee brings up their sales for everything else too. A $600,000 payout seems small compared the the millions in increased revenue they gained after winning a successful campaign to compete against other businesses in the coffee market through which they risked their customers safety by lesser regulated means of brewing coffee.

Compare this to the deceitful marketing tools and blatant lying in advertisement that they sell anything healthy. Sure, they've gotten a tad better now if you can call it that, but when Morgan Spurlock put out his 30 day documentary "Super Size Me" they sure did make it look like they were doing a lot to change when they were actually not changing much and just becoming more deceitful in their advertisements. It's no wonder why they account for 60-70% of the fast food industry these days.

Add all this to the advantage companies have now in the courts when they say "Look, these people are sue happy, they sue over frivolous stuff daily" all because we never were explained the facts in the first place. It's sad that a multi-billion dollar business really won big on a case in which they clearly disregarded a human beings safety.

So, I'm sorry @chromedigi , I guess the whole problem here is our definition of what is frivolous and what is not.

chromedigi · September 2013

^ Fine. I'm not invested in that example. Pick any other. In any case, let's not go off the rails over the example, when the actual point was to attempt to clarify the meaning of "unfair advantage."

jasor · September 2013

Adverstisement: Spend $75, and get a camper.

Well, that's pretty clear. Spend $75 twice, and get two campers. It doesnt work that way? That's not frivolous...that's misleading.

Edit: I read the terms, so I'll backpedal a bit.

LEGO® Mini Volkswagen T1 Camper Van (item 40079) offer is valid on shop.LEGO.com and at LEGO Stores from September 1 through 11:59pm EST, September 30, 2013, or while supplies last only. Qualifying purchase must be equal to or greater than $75 in merchandise only; any applicable taxes, shipping charges, or value of gift cards purchased do not apply to merchandise total. Offers exclude backorder items, and cannot be applied to previous purchases or combined with any other discount, offer or free gift. One free set per household. Set is valued at approximately a $4.99 (US) / $6.99 (CA) retail value and cannot be exchanged or substituted for any other item or cash value. Set is available exclusively through this offer; additional sets cannot be purchased. Offers not valid at LEGOLAND® Parks or LEGOLAND Discovery Centers. The LEGO Group reserves the right to cancel or modify these promotions at any time without advance notice.

I still agree that *IF they are adding it to the order, that's a "them" issue.

Dougout · September 2013

^^^Frivolous being a case against a company that knowingly caused serious injury and refused to compensate for medical expenses vs a company that doesn't put free promotional items in an order because people aware of the limit clearly aren't sticking to it.

It's clear to me the only reason why people care about this is because it directly affects them, not because they are justified, not because the one per person promo tricked them into placing multiple orders, not because TLG is making attempts to harm their loyal customers. They are upset because they want to get a free toy and not have to spend real money for it on eBay which I assume they would if they though it was SOOOOOO cool. Oh, look it's $20 on eBay, maybe people are upset because they don't view it as a free toy but rather a $20 bill which wasn't included in their box. Oh, well too bad

jasor · September 2013

Just as there are MISB and Build collectors of sets, there are just as many poly collectors with the same mindset.

It's weird to me that a customer would get one with each $75 purchase at a physical store, and they add it to an online order...but drop it after the fact. Along with all the inconsistency of people getting 2 or getting 1, blah blah blah.

People have a right to scratch their heads, and say "huh?"

wagnerml2 · September 2013

@dougout - No exaggeration. You miss the point entirely. Let's go in order:
1) Lego offers a promotion of a freebie with purchase (with a limit).
2) You buy one and receive.
3) You like the freebie, so you fill out a second order that you wouldn't normally order and the freebie is automatically placed in your cart.
4) You go to the checkout and the freebie is in your cart
5) You receive your final invoice and pay and the freebie is included.
6) You receive your package and the freebie is not included.
7) You are out $4.99 for the freebie and the $75 minimum for the order you really only ordered because of the freebie.
8) Multiply buy 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 transactions and this is what the company is profiting by? They are allegedly misleading the consumer at the point of purchase, according to consumer laws.

The fact that there was limiting language in the offer is immaterial because the party placing the limits allowed the freebie to be part of the transaction at the point of sale. At that point, they have waived the limits and MUST deliver what was included on the original invoice.

Damages are damages whether they are NFL concussions or small $5 transactions multiplied thousands of times. Class action lawyers don't care what the damages are to the individual class members, they only care what kinds of fees they can generate. Those fees are not related to the actual damages alleged or won by the individual class members.

To bring it to this situation, a savvy plaintiff lawyer in my particular jurisdiction (Madison County, Illinois...Google it and "class action" and see what you get.) would have no problem making an argument that his class clients were deprived not only of the freebie, but were enticed by the offer to spend money they otherwise would not have spent. Regardless of the limits on the website, they were allowed to include that freebie in the transaction. This is a case that could be filed and might have some legs in the hands of the right lawyer and in the right courtroom.

Lego could simply eliminate this by enforcement before checkout or enforcement before payment and delivery.

I am not offering this as an endorsement or defense of the law, just simply stating a fact that this could occur if Lego was not more mindful of how its policies are implemented. I'm sure there will be responses as to how ridiculous the system or the laws are, but to apply the current law to the current situation, what I have stated here is fact. If I were asked to advise Lego, I would advise them to change their practice.

Dougout · September 2013

^^I agree people have a right to scratch their heads and we all still are, but bringing up the idea of a class action suit seems a bit excessive and ridiculous. If we all directed our attention to constructive ways like submitting feedback on [email protected] or sending TLG e-mails and letter expressing our unsatisfaction with all the new changes it would go much further than bashing a company in which the bashers openly state they hope the company reads. Huh?

Like "oh this guy says he wants to sue us here"
"we better go out of our way and reverse changes because this guy anonymously states he's going to form a class action suit"

This attitude severely overly states the importance some consumers have to Lego

wagnerml2 · September 2013

@dougout - and your McD's example doesn't apply here. The woman in the McDonalds case sued under a theory or tort. This means that McD's owed her a duty, failed to discharge that duty, and she was injured as a result. That is wholly a different area of law from consumer class action litigation. Different standards of proof, different elements and different measures of damages.

chromedigi · September 2013

^ Actually, the error in that case was mine, not @dougout 's. I was groping for an example of a frivolous suit as a side-remark to a different main point, and picked the wrong one.

Dougout · September 2013

Ok, I see you corrected him, thank you.

wagnerml2 · September 2013

@dugout - I don't disagree with the "mountain out of a mole hill" position. As an attorney, I am often embarrassed by the cases and arguments made by some of us. But I have fought my fair share of "frivolous" claims for clients which could have be circumvented by better planning in the beginning. I'm not advocating filing a suit in the least. My point is not that a case is imminent, but possible. If Lego is not mindful of how some of their policies are implemented, they could find themselves spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, fighting what some might consider a frivolous claim. All because they didn't pay attention to one consumer who got ticked off and called the right lawyer.

Again, I am not advocating this, simply stating that the elements are there for an argument to be made.

doriansdad · September 2013

They have been doing this since the xmas seligh promo set debacle of BF 2012. It says in their terms they have the right to modify or limit promos at any time for any reason. It will happen with the 2 xmas promo sets this year as well.

Dougout · September 2013

^^I know they are opening themselves to issues. I'm sure they will implement better methods to cover their butts in the future, like I said this is a slow process. It seems they have a weird system set up from shipping to customer service. When I placed my second order I received a message saying there was some sort of new "training" going on and I might receive a delayed email confirmation.

I got my email confirmation and the promo is in it, so it will be interesting to see if I receive my second promo or not. They seem to be implementing weird techniques which I can only assume is their attempts at targeting certain suspected "abusers" and then persuading them to minimize their habits. It's hard to say who buys too much and who is just buying for themselves based on many different types of customers, but I would assume by now they have a couple years of data to determine some customers that are less beneficial than others.

dougts · September 2013

^ which to me all comes back to the most head-scratching thing to me:

outside of limited items (promos or things like 41999), why would a company not want to sell more product to a willing buyer? It's not like they don't have as many of random set X (exclusive or otherwise) as they can sell. As a manufacturer and a retailer, they should want to sell as many widgets as possible.

Implementing policies where orders are reviewed and judgments are made such as "hey, this guy already bought two death stars, we better refuse the sale on number 3" are, to be frank, insane.

Again, brand new, discounted, or limited items - hey, no problem. weekly or per order limits. again, no problem. but lifetime maximums on sets produced by the hundreds of thousands or millions? Wow, I just don't see any rational reason for that.

Phonebooth · September 2013

wagnerml2 said:
How many people here placed a second order just to see if the Camper van appeared? You them clicked "buy" and paid for the product because the camper van was included in the second order. You then didn't get the camper van, but got the product you would not have otherwise purchased in that order but for the camper van. That is strictly prohibited by consumer laws in the US. I've gotta think it is prohibited in Europe as well.

So, you purposefully attempted to bypass the T&Cs yet you decry, "PROTECT ME UNDER CONSUMER LAWS!"

Sorry, no sympathy here.

wagnerml2 · September 2013

@Phonebooth - Ummmm. no. I never stated that I bypassed anything. In fact, made 1 purchase got my CV and Leiutenant and moved on. I was reacting to others who said it was included on an invoice and then not included in the shipment.....again, without belaboring the point, that is a violation.

mressin · September 2013

For your perusal, the T&Cs (UK): http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Terms-And-Conditions
No mention of anything that justifies removing promotional items or modifying the order in any way.

Phonebooth said:
So, you purposefully attempted to bypass the T&Cs yet you decry, "PROTECT ME UNDER CONSUMER LAWS!"

If anything, it's the other way round: TLG adds a free poly to the invoice when they have no intention of fulfilling the deal.

rocao · September 2013

Dougout said:
They seem to be implementing weird techniques which I can only assume is their attempts at targeting certain suspected "abusers" and then persuading them to minimize their habits.

This is what I am cautioning against. It's fine to speculate on the reasons, but we should be clear that it is just speculation because often times the discussion keeps going and it's mentioned and repeated enough that all of a sudden it morphs into fact for some.

Why can you only assume they are targeting anyone? Is it not another perfectly reasonable possibility that this polybag was made in smaller quantities than usual and they are trying to ensure that this reaches as many households as possible?

Dougout · September 2013

^That's perfectly reasonable, just with all the other changes this is what I am assuming for now. It's hard to say seeing as how there is no perfectly sound data to go on and this is an internet forum.

You are right though, there are other possible reasons and I am going to try and stop speculating.

gmpirate · September 2013

Dougout said:

You are right though, there are other possible reasons and I am going to try and stop speculating.

But then what would be do?

Chang405 · September 2013

I think it is perfectly fine to speculate and discuss. Things really start to go downhill when people start to think their speculative opinion is THE incontrovertible fact.

LegoFanTexas · September 2013

Dougout said:
^^I agree people have a right to scratch their heads and we all still are, but bringing up the idea of a class action suit seems a bit excessive and ridiculous. If we all directed our attention to constructive ways like submitting feedback on [email protected] or sending TLG e-mails and letter expressing our unsatisfaction with all the new changes it would go much further than bashing a company in which the bashers openly state they hope the company reads. Huh?

One of the fastest ways to get a large company to pay attention to a complaint is to file a lawsuit.

It instantly gets attention, and from pretty high up in the company.

Maybe not the best attention, maybe the company doesn't like it very much, but it draws far more attention far faster than an e-mail to customer service.

If I filed such a lawsuit and TLG quickly said, "you're right, please let us fix this", I'd be happy to drop the suit in exchange for them simply sending out polybags to anyone who had them in their cart at the time of checkout.

All TLG has to do here is stop putting them in the cart at time of checkout, it is really a simple thing, far easier than manually removing them from some (but not all) orders after the fact.

LegoFanTexas · September 2013

Phonebooth said:
So, you purposefully attempted to bypass the T&Cs yet you decry, "PROTECT ME UNDER CONSUMER LAWS!"

Sorry, no sympathy here.

The law overrides the T&C, so actually it was a fair point.

Just because someone puts something in T&C doesn't make it enforceable or legal.

Phonebooth · September 2013

LegoFanTexas said:

Phonebooth said:
So, you purposefully attempted to bypass the T&Cs yet you decry, "PROTECT ME UNDER CONSUMER LAWS!"
Sorry, no sympathy here.
The law overrides the T&C, so actually it was a fair point.
Just because someone puts something in T&C doesn't make it enforceable or legal.

So, it's ok that we've found a technical loophole now to bypass limits... Oh the lengths we shall go....

wagnerml2 · September 2013

It's not a technical loophole if the company is the one doing it to itself....No one is trying to trick them, they are filling out an order form and the system is placing the freebies in the carts automatically. If the manufacturer is going to offer a promotion, they have a responsibility to manage that promotion correctly. Part of that responsibility is making sure that someone doesn't inadvertently make a purchase after being led to believe they will receive something when, in fact, they do not. This is regardless of whatever fine print TLG chooses to put on it.

wagnerml2 · September 2013

I posted this in another thread, but here is an example of a real-life lawsuit filed under very similar circumstances. Again, not advocating or defending this, just simply stating it as a reality.

http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/3026-toys-r-us-free-gift-class-action-lawsuit

Phonebooth · September 2013

Be fair to speculate what would happen to future promos if some jackwagon tried to sue lego over this situation - POOF! Bye bye freebies.

LegoFanTexas · September 2013

Phonebooth said:
Be fair to speculate what would happen to future promos if some jackwagon tried to sue lego over this situation - POOF! Bye bye freebies.

That is one possible outcome...

or...

TLG could perhaps properly manage their promotions and not cause the problem in the first place.

They don't have the excuse of not being able to afford competent legal advice. :)

LegoFanTexas · September 2013

BTW, it is worth pointing out whenever you're "outraged" over the law, thinking it is "silly" or "absurd"...

We are not a nation of men with opinions and "mob justice", we are a nation of laws.

The law is the law, the court's job is to read the law and interpret its meaning and to settle disputes between two or more parties who disagree on what it means or who have wronged someone.

If you don't like the law, there is a peaceful system in which to change it via the legislative process.

This is a far superior system to how many other countries in the world do it, either via direct bribes (Mexico) or outright war (Syria).

I'll take the USA version any day.

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

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories