THANK YOU. You said it best! I never had any intentions of suing and only wanted them to live up to the sale after they were not truthful from the beginning. Sending a confirmation of the sale, some 7 hours after the first contact meant that they intended to honor the sale. My contention is that they knew of the mistake or the original price was correct at 60% off the previous factory price on a refurb camera that has been replaced with a newer model. Yes, it's a great deal, but I recognized it and acted in good faith. Hopefully they will come to their senses on Monday in a good will resolution. If I was outraged, I would be trying to sell nearly $20K worth of equipment which is pointless knowing I'd get cents on the dollar for many camera bodies. Thanks again.
Hank Radt wrote:
I have noted that it appears to have been a mistake, and that companies with reputations to protect are extremely unlikely to bait and switch (which is a deliberate act). But please do re-read the OPs posts - he was disappointed, but not outraged, when he was told there was nothing in stock, but then it was re-listed, then received an email saying the order was shipping, then was told it was not. How many of us have spent frustrating hours dealing with unresponsive or incompetent customer service organizations?
Nikon may be completely within its rights to refuse the order; on the other hand, it may not be under consumer protection legislation - the legal system exists to sort out differences when two parties can't reach an agreement. And, to the point that a frivolous lawsuit would drive up costs, there are some built in checks and balances to the system, the first one being a lawyer who advises his or her client if the likelihood of success is small and that pursuing legal action will cost a lot of money, the second one being that if the court thinks a suit is frivolous, it will throw it out.
I also noted that Nikon could have resolved this fairly easily at any point (and likely still can) - it could decide that a couple $hundred is a small price to pay against the risk of a suit they may lose (or spend a lot more defending), or it could look at the issue differently, empathizing with the customer, and decide that this is a great opportunity to cement a relationship with a longstanding customer. Could be a lot better investment than spending advertising dollars (to the point about walking in another's shoes, well, I have owned those shoes in the past, and I looked for opportunities to create customer loyalty whenever I could). Nikon may even learn that there are some flaws in its customer service process and systems that it needs to resolve - in this case, the OP might actually be doing it a favor.
We all have a world view and you are of course free to disagree. Maybe calling someone shameful has worked for you in the past. But I'm much more likely to be convinced by a solid argument based in facts and logic.
I have noted that it appears to have been a mistak... (
show quote)