Home› Buying & Selling Topics
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Only 1 VW Camper poly per household via S@H

1…5681011

Comments

  • mressinmressin Member Posts: 843
    ^ I can't agree more. Contract and customer protection laws are here to protect the weaker from the stronger (think little Timmy).
    LegoFanTexaswagnerml2
  • ColoradoBricksColoradoBricks Member Posts: 1,659
    Right now on S@H US, when you add the #10232 PC, it adds the free #40079 Mini Camper and the #5002891 movie poster sticker.
    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 ?
    LegoFanTexas
  • vwong19vwong19 Member Posts: 1,191
    This thread is interesting. Before this, I had no idea there was a 1 per household limit on these promos. I fortunately was able to get 3 of each (1 in a store, 2 online on separate days) earlier this month. I was considering on making another order soon, but now that I know, I am not making any more online orders this month on the chance that I don't get the promo. This new policy will definitely effect how much I buy as it effectively eliminates additional sales.

    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...
    LegoFanTexaschromedigi
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    Order twice for the first time ever cause I wanted two clones. Both Orders had a VW in it. Not sure if they overlooked it cause I've never double ordered during a promo before or if I just got lucky.
  • BrickarmorBrickarmor Member Posts: 1,258
    vwong19 said:


    Really? One per household...

    Exactly. There's been so much emphasis on how to properly eliminate "extra" freebies, and so little attention paid to the gray alternatives (between the black and white extremes of ONE and UNLIMITED). No matter how it may be enacted, a strict limit of one is the wrong decision, for many reasons. Again, these are giveaways and enticements, not rare, not hard to find, not on clearance, etc.
    LegoFanTexas
  • PhoneboothPhonebooth Member Posts: 1,430
    mressin said:

    ^ I can't agree more. Contract and customer protection laws are here to protect the weaker from the stronger (think little Timmy).

    But here were talking about exploiting those laws to justify loopholes to permit some individuals to circumvent purchasing limits in order to resell and maximize profit.

    Don't believe me? Currently 5 US sellers on BL with 5 or more to sell. Don't even get me started on eBay.
    princedraven
  • beabea Member Posts: 227
    TLG seem to be intent on taking away incentives from customers and still, somehow, ebayers manage to get 20+ of these each. There are holes in their system but their actions don't seem to close them, are inconsistent and annoy their fans.
  • mressinmressin Member Posts: 843
    edited September 2013
    ^^ Legally, TLC have to deliver, and there are morally legitimate reasons why customers can expect to get what is on the invoice sheet (has been explained further up in thread, won't repeat here). TLC are safe in refusing to fulfill the outstanding poly (valued by themselves at $4.99) because few people would take such a large company to court over such a small amount.

    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.
    wagnerml2
  • DiggydoesDiggydoes Member Posts: 1,079
    After a dissapointing phonecall with CS i only say:lesson learned,the next time i buy multiple things only in my local brand-store!
    princedravenindigobox
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,308
    Have we figured out if this is only being limited in certain countries? I've placed 3 orders and they have all come with clone trooper and vw.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    I think everywhere its just not very common. I've had one order without a poly (removed in CS, clearly marked in my order) and a few with. There was no reason for that order to be picked up, other than that i ordered within a fairly short time of an earlier one. A later one came through with the poly? So who knows. As i said earlier, there are more people in this thread saying they got multiples than that they didn't :/
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,148
    I had an extra in my delivery of Batman and LotR Battle for Helms deep yesterday despite having had two in store.

    Interestingly I noticed on my VIP history on the website the two in store ones are listed but the S@H 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?
    chromedigi
  • jasorjasor Member Posts: 839
    What's weird, is the restriction has always existed....but not APPLIED. How many people stocked up on Hoth Han's? It seems this is all a new development of enforcement, but executed in a very shoddy way.

    S&H needs an update, plain and simple.
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Member Posts: 1,376
    ^^ This. If you have a policy, you cannot selectively enforce it. You run the risk of running afoul of both your customers and the law. Again, the talk of a "loophole" is absurd. A "Loophole" is when someone is trying to prevent something and someone else trys to get around it. Here, if I place an order for $75+ I get the poly added automatically. That is a S@H issue, not a me issue. If it is part of the agreement when I pay at checkout, I expect it to be in the box on my doorstep.
    FatMattmargotjasorJeffHLegoFanTexasGurooo
  • graphitegraphite Member Posts: 3,275
    ^ Wouldn't the correct term for what @Phonebooth was trying to say be "exploit". Making multiple orders to try to get more than one is exploiting the fact that LEGO isn't enforcing their own policy. Definitely not a loophole like you said.
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    jasor said:

    What's weird, is the restriction has always existed....but not APPLIED. How many people stocked up on Hoth Han's? It seems this is all a new development of enforcement, but executed in a very shoddy way.

    S&H needs an update, plain and simple.

    T&C was very likely showing the "one item per household" part by that time, so everyone MUST return their 1+ freebies immediately, or in case of a police raid, they are risking getting executed... (Off to return 9 pcs of TC-14s...)

    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)
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    ^ and I doubt his issue is with people trying to get 2, but if a second doesnt turn up returning the parcel at legos expense when they knew beforehand they shouldn't expect two. Or three or ten. And then knowing that blaming lego because they were obviously left with no choice but to game the system.
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    margot said:

    Have we figured out if this is only being limited in certain countries? I've placed 3 orders and they have all come with clone trooper and vw.

    Random. I got 2 for 2 orders, but friends have cancelled 2nd ones. I must be liked very much, don't know why.
    (And of course you shall return the +2 extras - or, send them to me, for safe deposit... :-] )
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    To LFT:
    LegoFanTexas said:

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

    It is still valid. But with the fine print.

    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...
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    edited September 2013
    cheshirecat said:

    ^ and I doubt his issue is with people trying to get 2, but if a second doesnt turn up returning the parcel at legos expense when they knew beforehand they shouldn't expect two. Or three or ten. And then knowing that blaming lego because they were obviously left with no choice but to game the system.

    That "loophole" could be easily fixed by LEGO and ONLY by LEGO and there wouldn't be so much fuzz. I expect their system in sync with their T&C. (As "de-facto", this "one per household" was never enforced, at least I haven't seen it enforced).

    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...
    mressin
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    There are lots of loopholes left open, there are lots of doors left open. Just because it's there doesnt mean you have to exploit/abuse it. Trying to order a second or third is fine, making lego pay two lots of shipping because you didnt get away with it is whats wrong. Why's it wrong, well A it's just not very nice and B the likelihood is that it will hurt us all in the future. So where as you have a decent chance of getting more than one now (and theres lots of us who can atest to that) if it's costing TLG money then next time none of us will. But hey who cares right?
    PhoneboothprincedravenDougoutYellowcastle
  • meyerc13meyerc13 Member Posts: 227
    My kids often save their money for a LEGO set. If they both decide to spend their money during the same promo, I can tell you that LEGO would break some little hearts if brother gets the promo and sister doesn't. If LEGO is willing to give out a $5 item with every purchase, what difference should it make if I make one purchase or five? I have no love for resellers who hoard promos, but this isn't the way to combat that.
    chromedigiBrickDancermressinvwong19LegoFanTexasYellowcastleFenrisAkashijuggles7Gurooo
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    If I may be so bold as to explain for others, I believe the exploitation they are talking about is if someone who knows about the "1 per household" fine print places multiple orders anyway to see if they get multiple polybags, with the intention of returning orders if they do not.
    Tevans333bluemodern
  • graphitegraphite Member Posts: 3,275
    margot said:

    ^It's not exploiting or abusing, I'm buying a lot of stuff that I probably wouldn't have purchased to begin with because I like getting the promos. Who's getting exploited? :-) I dare to say that TLG is the one making out on these deals so to call them exploited is ridiculous.

    I'm doing it too. I've made 4 orders. But I would still consider it exploiting. Their terms say 1 but they aren't enforcing it and taking advantage of that by making multiple orders to get multiple promos is exploiting that detail. I don't really feel that part is hurting anyone and is definitely no fault of anyone but TLG.

    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.
    cheshirecat
  • PhoneboothPhonebooth Member Posts: 1,430
    ^abusing/exploiting... All the same to me. Congrats on scamming the system.

    Can't wait until they cut the promos altogether.
  • HardradaHardrada Member Posts: 439
    edited September 2013
    cheshirecat said:

    I think everywhere its just not very common. I've had one order without a poly (removed in CS, clearly marked in my order) and a few with. There was no reason for that order to be picked up, other than that i ordered within a fairly short time of an earlier one. A later one came through with the poly? So who knows. As i said earlier, there are more people in this thread saying they got multiples than that they didn't :/

    So currently you have several more VW Camper polybags than allowed by TLG's terms and conditions? You "exploited"/"abused" their system and possess goods you are not entitled to.

    (/ Holier than thou mode off)
    cheshirecat said:

    There are lots of loopholes left open, there are lots of doors left open. Just because it's there doesnt mean you have to exploit/abuse it. Trying to order a second or third is fine, making lego pay two lots of shipping because you didnt get away with it is whats wrong.

    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.
  • mressinmressin Member Posts: 843
    edited September 2013
    rocao said:

    If I may be so bold as to explain for others, I believe the exploitation they are talking about is if someone who knows about the "1 per household" fine print places multiple orders anyway to see if they get multiple polybags, with the intention of returning orders if they do not.

    Ok, good point, thanks. But it seems to me that a small, but important moment is missed:
    - 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?
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited September 2013
    I personally feel the restriction has been thought out poorly.

    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
    mressin
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    Phonebooth said:

    Can't wait until they cut the promos altogether.

    Me too. So my wallet will get a long term relief.

    margot
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    Phonebooth said:

    ^abusing/exploiting... All the same to me. Congrats on scamming the system.

    So I will get 100 of my friends to make 1-1 orders with LEGO and then fully comply with their fine print and not abusing their [borked] system.

    I will also call Microsoft to tell them not to make security patches, but leave their software buggy and blame it on the hackers.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited September 2013
    Regarding the legality of shipping something other than what is on the bill of goods, I have some questions.

    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.
  • princedravenprincedraven Member Posts: 3,764
    Just a few points for those interested in the promo (info from various Lego staff, both via phone and in store):
    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.
    Dougout
  • mressinmressin Member Posts: 843
    edited September 2013
    rocao said:

    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

    Exactly. TLC is a good company. That's why I'm so stunned by this.

    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...
  • Tevans333Tevans333 Member Posts: 152
    rocao said:

    I personally feel the restriction has been thought out poorly.

    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 believe it is meant to be selectively enforced when they feel it is nessesary. Whether that be because they see someone has made 100 orders and suspects them to be a reseller, or because a promo is in high demand and they do not want to run out too quickly. If they have a 30 day promo running and see that half of the promos are gone on day 1, they know they need to slow down the amount of promos being given out.

    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.

  • FatMattFatMatt Member Posts: 502
    ^How about placing 5 separate $75 orders within minutes of each other at 5 separate times over the course of a month:P
  • jdylakjdylak Member Posts: 281
    margot said:

    ^It's not exploiting or abusing, I'm buying a lot of stuff that I probably wouldn't have purchased to begin with because I like getting the promos. Who's getting exploited? :-) I dare to say that TLG is the one making out on these deals so to call them exploited is ridiculous.

    That's what I don't get. Why buy $75 worth of stuff that you prob would not buy anyways just for a promo? If you are doing that, wouldn't it just be better to buy the promo off of ebay? I didn't want to spend so much the month to get the Superman character so I didn't. Instead of payi8ng $50 or $75 in stuff I didn't really want, I paid $10 for the figure on ebay. I've heard before "I ordered $75 worth of stuff I really didn't want just to get the promo". But why?

  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    princedraven said:

    Just a few points for those interested in the promo (info from various Lego staff, both via phone and in store):
    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.

    Thanks for the most reliable source of information that has been posted in this thread so far. Looks like changes are coming.
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    edited September 2013
    princedraven said:

    The online system is being reviewed with a view to amend the way promotions are handled.

    Thanks for the info Princedraven, I'm really looking forward to it.
    princedraven said:

    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.

    Uhm, I think I am not the only one who buys "during promotion", but since every month there is some kind of a promotion anyway, it looks unavoidable.
    Also, the "promo" item is an incentive. If I don't get any, and prices for an item is higher on S@H (which usually are*) than in any other local BM or webshop, then I wonder why would I buy at S@H.
    (*Though I heard this gonna change...)
  • FatMattFatMatt Member Posts: 502
    edited September 2013
    ^^^It's not stuff that isn't wanted, but rather wouldn't have been purchased without the freebie. Many people factor the freebie into the price they pay as a discount, just as they do with VIP points. So, for some, this freebie may take them down to a certain price point needed for them to purchase a certain set.
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,308
    edited September 2013
    jdylak said:


    That's what I don't get. Why buy $75 worth of stuff that you prob would not buy anyways just for a promo? If you are doing that, wouldn't it just be better to buy the promo off of ebay? I didn't want to spend so much the month to get the Superman character so I didn't. Instead of payi8ng $50 or $75 in stuff I didn't really want, I paid $10 for the figure on ebay. I've heard before "I ordered $75 worth of stuff I really didn't want just to get the promo". But why?

    Funny, I did buy Jor-El off of Ebay because there wasn't anything I wanted at the time. But I am a huge Lego Star Wars fan and with all of the new Star Wars and new sets in general, trust me, I find lots of stuff that I want. But if not for the promos I would be waiting for sales at Amazon, Target, Walmart etc.....
    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...

  • jasorjasor Member Posts: 839
    edited September 2013
    Phonebooth said:

    Can't wait until they cut the promos altogether.

    If they did indeed do this, TLG would be silly. Also, it would paint their ability to effectively manage their online presence as a failure.

    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.
    margot
  • HardradaHardrada Member Posts: 439
    princedraven said:


    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.

    Are there non-promotion times on S@H at all?

    I'll be frank, I only buy from S@H 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 S@H 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 S@H 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 S@H 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.)
    maques
  • maquesmaques Member Posts: 96
    edited September 2013
    Hardrada said:

    Here S@H is very expensive. ...

    Greetings fellow hungarian LEGO fan!!! :-)
    (And it's expensive not mainly because of S@H, 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 S@H here...

  • graphitegraphite Member Posts: 3,275
    Phonebooth said:

    ^abusing/exploiting... All the same to me. Congrats on scamming the system.

    Can't wait until they cut the promos altogether.

    Just because you consider them all the same doesn't make it so. Just like it is a FACT that I'm not scamming the system. I'm not buying for the promo, returning everything but the promo and getting the promo for free which might be considered scamming. I'm placing orders. Nothing out of the ordinary at all. If they send me promo's that I've already gotten then that is not my problem. I'm still keeping what I bought because I bought stuff I need.

  • ColoradoBricksColoradoBricks Member Posts: 1,659
    I just noticed that Brickset has #40079 available for purchase in LEGO Stores in Canada, so much for licensed sets, etc
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas Member Posts: 8,404
    rocao said:

    Regarding the legality of shipping something other than what is on the bill of goods, I have some questions.

    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.

    No, it doesn't work like that.

    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.
    rocao said:

    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?

    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.
    rocao said:

    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.

    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 S@H 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 S@H 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. :)
    JeffHwagnerml2
  • LegoboyLegoboy Member Posts: 8,827
    ColoradoBricks said:

    I just noticed that Brickset has #40079 available for purchase in LEGO Stores in Canada, so much for licensed sets, etc

    The license terms probably allow TLG to sell them in their Canadian Brand Stores. Nothing fishy about that.
  • ColoradoBricksColoradoBricks Member Posts: 1,659
    ^ Sorry was not clear, but that could explain why some eBay/BL stores have many for sale.
    Legoboy
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    LegoFanTexas said:

    No, it doesn't work like that.

    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.

    I'm about to head out of the house so I only have time to respond to this one point right now.

    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon

Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

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.