Is this a joke? [pricing gimmicks]

[Princhester]

@Fuzzy_Dunlop

There’s no written policy because it’s puffery. They’re not making a legal offer to you, they are making a promotional claim. You’re not supposed to take it literally.

No, puffery is where you say something exaggerated. This slogan would be legally binding at least in Australia, but regardless it isn’t puffery because it’s not exaggerated, they would do exactly what they say they would do, it’s just that the circumstance in which they would have to do it will never arise.

The “policy” thing raised in this thread is a complete furphy: there does not have to be a policy. The slogan is completely self explanatory and self contained.

[Princhester]

@Doctor_Jackson

It’s actually ingenious. They claim “We’ll beat the competitors price or pay you $100!”. They have just limited their potential loss to a set dollar amount. If you do get another dealer quote for $500 lesss on the same model and trim, they have the option of beating the price or giving you the quoted amount, whichever is the better deal for them.

It’s more ingenious than that: it keeps prices high by punishing competitors for quoting lower prices. Any competitor that does so will cause their customer to come to the dealer making the $100 offer.

[cmyk]

If the competitor is running the same deal, just keep running back and forth between shops—penny by penny—until it is free.

That’ll learn em.

[Flywheel]

It’s still a better tactic than the opposite…

[dofe]

@Princhester

No, puffery is where you say something exaggerated. This slogan would be legally binding at least in Australia, but regardless it isn’t puffery because it’s not exaggerated, they would do exactly what they say they would do, it’s just that the circumstance in which they would have to do it will never arise.

The “policy” thing raised in this thread is a complete furphy: there does not have to be a policy. The slogan is completely self explanatory and self contained.

I refer you to Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., one of the more memorable cases (along with the Carbolic Smoke Ball case) that almost all U.S. law students study in first year contracts class:

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000), more widely known as the Pepsi Points Case, is a contracts case tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999, in which the plaintiff, John Leonard, sued PepsiCo, Inc. in an effort to enforce an “offer” to redeem 7,000,000 Pepsi Points for an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet, which PepsiCo had shown in a portion of a televised commercial that PepsiCo argued was intended to be humorous. The plaintiff did not collect 7,000,000 Pepsi Points through the purchase of Pepsi products, but instead sent a certified check for $700,008.50 as permitted by the contest rules. Leonard had 15 existing points, paid $0.10 a point for the remaining 6,999,985 points, and a $10 shipping and handling fee.

The Second Circuit denied Plaintiff’s claims on several grounds, including:

1. It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

2. The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery.

3. The value of the alleged contract meant that it fell under the provisions of the statute of frauds, but the statute’s requirement for written agreement between the parties was not fulfilled, so a contract had not been formed.

I don’t know how much the matresses in questions cost, but it’s possible that there was no contract if the cost exceeded the amount under which the written requirements of the statute of frauds (UCC 2-201) come into play.

[Princhester]

What’s your point, as regards what I said, dofe?

[Siam_Sam]

@cmyk

If the competitor is running the same deal, just keep running back and forth between shops—penny by penny—until it is free.

That’ll learn em.

@Flywheel

It’s still a better tactic than the opposite…

I knew a tire salesman back in West Texas who I’m convinced murdered at least one of his competitors. Maybe two. Really.

[MrsTime]

Walmart in the States used to say they would beat any ones prices. However they do want to see the advertisement showing the price. I don’t think any business would just take your word for the price.

[msmith537]

@Princhester

It’s more ingenious than that: it keeps prices high by punishing competitors for quoting lower prices. Any competitor that does so will cause their customer to come to the dealer making the $100 offer.

Not really. One thing I’ve noticed when I shop around for a particular product is:
a) they tend to be priced exactly the same regardless of what store you buy it at.

b) there are subtle differences in the product, often with a slightly different product or SKU to make exact side by side comparisons impossible (ie Model 101-R vs Model 101-J WidgetMaker)

[Princhester]

I’m not sure why you think what you posted is a rebuttal of what I said, msmith537. Yes, your second point means that the effectiveness of the “we’ll beat our competitors’ prices” strategy is limited, but your first point is exactly an illustration of the effect the strategy has.