ramonsterns
Posts: 744 +13
There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department.
Customer sues Best Buy for breaking the law, gets banned
- Thread starter Matthew DeCarlo
- Start date
There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department.
G
Guest
Well he's right though. There are people who think since they're customers, they can do whatever the hell they want and that includes treading on other peoples feeling including emplyees when employees are in fact people just like them. For example, my mother was an insurance agent for over 20 years and she still have people who would show up at her office at 10:00pm at night even when she clearly say that the office is closed at 6pm. She don't mind serving people after her closure time so she also say if it's really important at least give her a call but some people don't care and when ask why, they said they are clients so they don't need to do what she asks since she gets money from them. Those people later on get kicked away by her because they're not worth the trouble to get a benefit of 30 dollars more per month on her salary. Those clients always believed that she they write a check to her, she gets a lot of it which is just absurd. It's the company that gets the money not her.
"There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department." This is not adding anything to the discussion.
"There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department." This is not adding anything to the discussion.
+1
G
Guest
I think what he was assuming is that the guy mainly sue not for customer's right but just for the money saying that he's doing it for justice. It's like suing a dry cleaner for messing up your pants for 1 million bucks and saying that you're doing it to prevent it happening to other people. So what he was saying that if he donates the money to charity, it clearly shows he's not in it for the money.
ramonsterns
Posts: 744 +13
This is has nothing to do with the discussion.
There's a clear difference between the customer getting stepped on and the customer being an *******.
Stores needs to be punished. They abuse the incredible trust of consumers. Send into sony? I'd love to get paid $40 to send in equipment to the manufacturer for repair for other people. I'll give anybody the benefit of a doubt when it comes to motive of any action against best buy.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
You're exactly the kind of "customer" I was talking about.
If you think about it, forums such as Techspot pander to incompetents, transients, and moochers, far more than their value as website traffic.
If you think about it, forums like Techspot function as the sales staff for Newegg. The noobs come hat in hand whining, "gee, I want to build a computer, and I've never done it before", and expect that the people at Techspot will bend over backwards pandering to their narcissism and lack of ability, for free, gratis, no charge. (Notice the capital "I" stuck in their throat)!
So then, we link to the parts at Newegg, effectively selling them for "the Egg".
The net result of this is Newegg doesn't have to hire salespeople, (who after all, have a special place in hell). And Techspot doesn't have to pay technicians either.
And who wins? He who comes begging. Sad and ironic really, if you think about it.
The nice thing about having been in sales, is I'm a great shopper by extension. Plus, I need no help from you whatsoever, in selecting parts, building a computer, or keeping it running. So, in my little "special" corner of hell, you're totally irrelevant. That said, keep your wallet in your pocket, along with your hopes, dreams, needs, and most of all, your problems.
Relic
Posts: 1,372 +17
Some facts people seem to be missing is that Jed sued in small claims court, and rightfully so according to his story imo. He caught Best Buy violating consumer rights (shocker I know), called them out on it and won two of three counts worth $3000. More people should stand up to major corporations who violate their rights rather then just accept defeat and take whatever scraps are thrown their way.
The ban however seems a bit juvenile to say the least or maybe it's a calculated move in an effort not to get caught again breaking the law by informed consumers.
The ban however seems a bit juvenile to say the least or maybe it's a calculated move in an effort not to get caught again breaking the law by informed consumers.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Home Depot used to use "shrink wrap" to hold merchandise on the top of customer's cars. Some nitwit left it on the top of his car all day in hundred degree weather. The car's finish was ruined, so the customer sued and won. Yeah right, in spite of the fact that it was his own stupidity and laziness that caused the damage.
Home Depot stopped making this material available because of the law suit, and anything that they now provide, is more difficult to use, and less secure.
Myself, in this circumstance, I wish very much that they'd have kept the shrink wrap, and banned the customer.
For whatever a salesperson or tech is, (some would say mostly "isn't"), at BB, they're not lawyers. That said, it's difficult to imagine that they premeditatedly set out to commit the "instant offense". It seems like this customer was legally pretty savvy, and was able to capitalize on it.
As I stated earlier, I think both parties are within their rights, and also that they're acting out in an expected manner.
You can't exactly give a test on consumer law to every person that wanders through your store. If you see my point.
I might add that I sincerely don't believe that legal expertise in consumer law, (whether they have it or not), probably isn't in the forefront of a person's mind when they decide to shop, or not to shop at BB.
Home Depot stopped making this material available because of the law suit, and anything that they now provide, is more difficult to use, and less secure.
Myself, in this circumstance, I wish very much that they'd have kept the shrink wrap, and banned the customer.
For whatever a salesperson or tech is, (some would say mostly "isn't"), at BB, they're not lawyers. That said, it's difficult to imagine that they premeditatedly set out to commit the "instant offense". It seems like this customer was legally pretty savvy, and was able to capitalize on it.
As I stated earlier, I think both parties are within their rights, and also that they're acting out in an expected manner.
This is a bit arbitrary, and the pronouns are a bit out of kilter. I would say that they didn't want to get caught again by THAT customer.
You can't exactly give a test on consumer law to every person that wanders through your store. If you see my point.
I might add that I sincerely don't believe that legal expertise in consumer law, (whether they have it or not), probably isn't in the forefront of a person's mind when they decide to shop, or not to shop at BB.
$34.99 to send it to Sony for over $100 of repairs the client didn't sign off on. I'd be mad. But probably be calmed by offering to write off the repair cost. Which is the right thing to do since they didn't follow proper procedure. I used to work in a retail store selling Bicycles and doing repairs and would have never performed any repair to a bike that cost any amount of money without first getting the customers permission.
I personally wouldn't have taken it to court but then again this treatment of customers won't end if people don't take a stand against it. $34.99 non refundable deposit seems ok for the time of a trained professional to evaluate problems and costs of a repair to a device, but not for unskilled labour.
I personally wouldn't have taken it to court but then again this treatment of customers won't end if people don't take a stand against it. $34.99 non refundable deposit seems ok for the time of a trained professional to evaluate problems and costs of a repair to a device, but not for unskilled labour.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Realistically you'd have to say that this isn't most of what the 35 dollar charge is about, skilled or unskilled labor. It's more about lights, heat, building leasing and maintenence. You know, the general pitfalls of a brick and mortar operation. At the end of the day you do need to show a profit to keep the place open. "Labor" is more or less all profit but, has to balance loss leader, low markup items, and expenses.
Ha! Does Best Buy enjoy throwing its money away? I don't think the story is over yet. If the guy sued once I don't think he'll hesitate now over some type of discrimination. Let somebody like the ACLU get involved and I think $3000 is going to seem like peanuts. Jed might have won the lottery!
I'd say that's a given. I know that the 35 dollar wouldn't just be the cost of the "labour" (sorry, I'm British) and the associated costs to the retail outlet would be factored into that charge. I still find this pretty hefty price considering the stories that have been told about the lack of actual service. You could just take items in and give them back saying "Sorry, it is not something we can repair" and make a decent profit for nothing. This is perceived level of service this "geek squad" is providing. Not a good thing for Bestbuy.
G
Guest
First off Best Buy's Geek Squad is completely overpriced, 330 to format your computer and then purchase and install a copy of Windows 7, oh and extra fees like cleaning your computer's chassis, checking stability of the chassis? (and if not then you may have to purchase another case?)
OK anyways, onto the topic, Best Buy has no right to ban him because he sued the company, it was Best Buy's own negligence to do the repairs and send it off to Sony before asking him. IMO he should have won more money for his troubles. If the geek squad wasn't a bunch of high school kids or 40 year old drop outs from college they would have contacted Jed upon realizing they have to send the Receiver back to Sony.
Although i do agree with captain cranky on the fact that the consumer (jed) is partially at fault here. Why would you take a receiver best buy in the first place, unless he bought it there and it was under warranty? I would have contact the manufacturer directly.
All in all people are stupid and so are big consumer business. Capiche?
OK anyways, onto the topic, Best Buy has no right to ban him because he sued the company, it was Best Buy's own negligence to do the repairs and send it off to Sony before asking him. IMO he should have won more money for his troubles. If the geek squad wasn't a bunch of high school kids or 40 year old drop outs from college they would have contacted Jed upon realizing they have to send the Receiver back to Sony.
Although i do agree with captain cranky on the fact that the consumer (jed) is partially at fault here. Why would you take a receiver best buy in the first place, unless he bought it there and it was under warranty? I would have contact the manufacturer directly.
All in all people are stupid and so are big consumer business. Capiche?
LightHeart
Posts: 155 +0
Come listen to a story of a man named Jed
Poor guy who, like to surf the web
Bought a Sony from some old dude
It broke in parts, it was too crude
He took it back to Best Buy to get a repair
He paid a depost which was all fair
They made a fix, which he didn't want
Charged him too much, they wern't up front
He sued them as fast as can be
And got $3000 for his family
Best Buy banned him for eternity
And Best Buy loses some publicity
Poor guy who, like to surf the web
Bought a Sony from some old dude
It broke in parts, it was too crude
He took it back to Best Buy to get a repair
He paid a depost which was all fair
They made a fix, which he didn't want
Charged him too much, they wern't up front
He sued them as fast as can be
And got $3000 for his family
Best Buy banned him for eternity
And Best Buy loses some publicity
G
Guest
Awesome idea, Best Buy: ban someone from your store when everything you sell can be found online for less. Now you can't even try to swindle him with Monster Cable.
G
Guest
It doesnt matter if hes banned from best buy...they'll be out of business soon...online shopping and better deals with have their doors closing soon
G
Guest
Doesn't surprise me what happened at Best Buy. I hate Best Buy they couldn't fix a 2 prong jack without having to send it out. I have had issues with them them several times. They just outright can't fix things. When I had my own PC business I had to fix more Best Buy work than one can imagine. I am surprised Jed didn't sue them for more. Do I believe that Best Buy banned him because they were upset with the outcome? Most certainly they did. Should Jed have left it alone and accepted the free repairs as compensation? NO! Companies like BB need to know that we are tired of being dumped on by them. I wish more people had the balls to take on these large companies, they just might get the hint. I have not been in a BB in over 10 years and I plan to never go back and I surely will not let their **** Squat work on anything of mine, I am not that stupid.
G
Guest
Yeah,
Best Buy will just do what the want when they want until someone calls them out. F Best Buy. Corporate bullies.
Best Buy will just do what the want when they want until someone calls them out. F Best Buy. Corporate bullies.
A
Auldian
The store manager did pay Sony to fix it, paid the shipping to and from Sony. He made good on the customer's complaint. The customer probably had his product a whole lot faster because BestBuy is actually Sony's big customer in this case and probably has their turnaround down to a minimum.
Had the guy brought up lawsuit in my face at my store, I'd have kept his product until after the courts were done.
Mistakes happen. The crowd that feels someone always has to be punished for them (beyond the additional training that would've happened at BestBuy for their staff) are the reason there's a lot more wary and defensive business owners. Customers make mistakes too. Most business deal with a whole lot of "entitled" asses thanks to the years of lawyers and "there oughta be a law" attitude.
Banning him from the store is totally fine. If he frenzies like a shark when he smells a little blood, he can lurk some other retailer. He went out of his way to be vindictive here. I hope he gets a lot out of his share of the $3000.
If BB was "Private Property" there would be "No Trespassers Violators Will Be Shot" signs plastered all over the front doors... aren't retail outlets afforded public access?
Your home is private, you have every right to keep the public off your property as you see fit, up to and including raising the barrel of a shotgun and sighting the intruder's face.
Bottom line is BB got what it asked for, and Jed got justice in the form of $3k.
G
Guest
The point Best Buy didn't contact the consumer, before handling it over to Sony and then try to charge the carryover bill was Best Buy wrong doing. That would enrage anyone.
Yes they waiver the fee, but the damage was done. So a law sue was justify. Consumer shouldn't be treat like a *****, some people are, but most are knowledgeable.
He was ban show Best Buy was wrong in court of law and they loss the battle with the consumer.
Best Buy will go Bankrupt in few years anyway.
Enjoy his $3000 check victory and justice for consumer was reinforced.
Yes they waiver the fee, but the damage was done. So a law sue was justify. Consumer shouldn't be treat like a *****, some people are, but most are knowledgeable.
He was ban show Best Buy was wrong in court of law and they loss the battle with the consumer.
Best Buy will go Bankrupt in few years anyway.
Enjoy his $3000 check victory and justice for consumer was reinforced.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Well no! Best Buy is private property that the public is routinely invited to visit.
Well, y'all jes better hope thet ol" Jeb doesn't want to come over fo' a visit. Cuz if y'all sticks yo gun in hiz face, he'll sue y'al, and likely win.
BTW, have you actually read "Steppenwolf" (Hermann Hesse), or do you just feel empowered by misspelling it? Hm, maybe there's a cartoon version for your iPhone.
Similar threads
