• The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.

Bad Smoky Mountain Knife Works - Bad Experience/Website orders not being honored

Coyja said:
No, it means that they caught the mistake, realized what was ordered, but sent what they should have originally advertised without contacting the customer first.

What they should have done was immediately refunded the order and sent an email explaining why. That still would be mildly crappy, but at least it wouldn’t necessitate the customer having to go through an entire additional runaround and return shipping.

Someone at SMKW is just passive aggressive and didn’t want to deal with it. I get why the OP would be annoyed for sure.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you say no to my post when your saying the exact same thing I have said in both my posts.

HappyDaddy said:
The "mistake" to which I was referring was the mistake in advertising a price on a knife that they didn't intend to offer for that price.
Click to expand...
I didn't quote you so I was not referring to your post .

craytab said:
I believe they were just going by the sku #, which was correct on the website but the entire rest of the description was wrong. The person shipping the knife probably just grabbed the box that matched the sku and shipped it. I don't believe they caught anything.
Click to expand...
That makes sense and could be what happened .
 
If it were a brick and mortar store here, they would have to honor the better product at the cheaper price. It's the law. Thought it was so everywhere in the USA.
 
leghog said:
If it were a brick and mortar store here, they would have to honor the better product at the cheaper price. It's the law. Thought it was so everywhere in the USA.
Click to expand...

This is actually a myth - it's not going to stand the legal muster. Many retailers may do this if the mistake is not of a ridiculous nature just to keep the customer happy. They do not have to do it.
Here are some general guidelines:

Assuming that an incorrect advertised price is truly an error rather than an attempt to deceive, companies are only obligated to honor it if a customer makes an offer at that price and the company accepts it. This exchange creates a contract between buyer and seller. In a store, customers make an offer simply by indicating they want to buy an item -- for example, by bringing it up to the register -- and the company accepts the offer by ringing up the sale. In the brick-and-mortar world, contracts don't get formed around pricing errors because the store just won't ring up the sale. But online selling, in which transactions are processed automatically, has added a new layer of complexity to the issue.

Online Standards
When an e-commerce website has had an incorrect price entered into its database, it can end up not only advertising that price but also accepting orders and charging customers' credit cards for that amount. The central issue here is whether retailers can void the contract created when orders were accepted. The easiest way for a company to deal with such situations is to have website "terms of use" that clearly state the company can cancel orders and refund customers' money because of pricing errors (or for any reason). Otherwise, a common law doctrine known as "unilateral mistake of fact" applies. This doctrine allows a party to a contract to set aside the contract if honoring it would be "unconscionable," or if the other party could have reasonably assumed it was a mistake. A $1,000 item advertised for $10 likely would meet this definition.
 
Gastonknife said:
This is actually a myth - it's not going to stand the legal muster. Many retailers may do this if the mistake is not of a ridiculous nature just to keep the customer happy. They do not have to do it.
Click to expand...
What you say is not correct here. Here it is codified into law so will indeed stand "legal muster", as you put it. See VA Code § 59.1-200. Prohibited practices. Particulary paragraph A.8. --- "Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised."

"In any action brought under this subdivision, the refusal by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant thereof, to sell any goods or services advertised or offered for sale at the price or upon the terms advertised or offered, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision. This paragraph shall not apply when it is clearly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement or offer by which such goods or services are advertised or offered for sale, that the supplier or offeror has a limited quantity or amount of such goods or services for sale, and the supplier or offeror at the time of such advertisement or offer did in fact have or reasonably expected to have at least such quantity or amount for sale"

 
Last edited:
leghog said:
What you say is not correct here. Here it is codified into law so will indeed stand "legal muster", as you put it. See VA Code § 59.1-200. Prohibited practices. Particulary paragraph A.8. --- "Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised."

"In any action brought under this subdivision, the refusal by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant thereof, to sell any goods or services advertised or offered for sale at the price or upon the terms advertised or offered, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision. This paragraph shall not apply when it is clearly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement or offer by which such goods or services are advertised or offered for sale, that the supplier or offeror has a limited quantity or amount of such goods or services for sale, and the supplier or offeror at the time of such advertisement or offer did in fact have or reasonably expected to have at least such quantity or amount for sale"
Click to expand...


You both may be correct. His post refers to an advertised price listed in error. Yours refers to advertised prices that are intentionally misrepresented to deceive and bait and switch the consumer. Similar, but not the same.
 
What I posted and said is 100% correct. A "mistake" on pricing is not legally binding. Leg - what you are saying is if there is INTENT to deceive - or the bait and switch. That is the part that creates a legal problem.
.
There is no state in the US that makes it a legal requirement for a retailer to have to sell an item if the price posted was a mistake. That is what happened in SMKW case here. Now if one wants to gather facts and proof that they intentionally did it; and tried to deceive customers then there is a legal case. But there is nothing in the post to come close to that.
As an example - a Walmart employee put a price sign for $1 in front of an $500 Ipad by mistake > they do not have to sell it to you for that. The same on-line. If a website mistakenly lists an item at the wrong price; the seller is not obligated to complete the sale - even if the buyer paid on-line with the CC. Heck Amazon does it all the time. So does Lowes and many other major retailers. Stuff like that can happen.
 
The VA Code doesn't distinguish errors in that it discusses prima facie evidence.
 
Prima facie evidence re intent. And such prima facie evidence will be difficult to refute in court or arbitration when the seller provides a product lesser than advertised without prior notification.
 
leghog said:
Prima facie evidence re intent. And such prima facie evidence will be difficult to refute in court or arbitration when the seller provides a product lesser than advertised without prior notification.
Click to expand...
Okay, whatever you want to think. Enjoy arguing with yourself. I won't be responding to you further on this subject.
 
Yeah Cray, let it go. The oddity here is that the other party keeps arguing with logic that supports they don't understand and in fact proves your very point.

"Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised."

If there is no malicious intent - then there is no case to be made > it's just a mistake - everyone makes them from time to time.
Even me .....once a year........ LOL :D
 
If you are ever in the area.. Make sure to stop.. Can easily spend a couple hrs browsing.. I did this past May!! And came out of there 400.00 bills lighter!!! Just Sayin!!:D
John:cool:
 
Gastonknife said:
Yeah Cray, let it go. The oddity here is that the other party keeps arguing with logic that supports they don't understand and in fact proves your very point.

"Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised."

If there is no malicious intent - then there is no case to be made > it's just a mistake - everyone makes them from time to time.
Even me .....once a year........ LOL :D
Click to expand...
You missed a part of the quote: ...the REFUSAL by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant thereof, TO SELL any goods or services advertised or offered for sale AT THE PRICE or upon the terms ADVERTISED or offered, SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION of this subdivision.

Those bits count too, you know.
 
Gastonknife said:
Yeah Cray, let it go. The oddity here is that the other party keeps arguing with logic that supports they don't understand and in fact proves your very point.

"Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the price or upon the terms advertised."

If there is no malicious intent - then there is no case to be made > it's just a mistake - everyone makes them from time to time.
Even me .....once a year........ LOL :D
Click to expand...
You're right. No point discussing something with somebody who can't possibly be wrong :rolleyes:
 
craytab said:
You're right. No point discussing something with somebody who can't possibly be wrong :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Then why haven't you or Gastonknife commented re this part of the code? You can't just ignore it while cherry picking the part preceding it.

"...the REFUSAL by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant thereof, TO SELL any goods or services advertised or offered for sale AT THE PRICE or upon the terms ADVERTISED or offered, SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION of this subdivision."
 
Hey all - sorry for not keeping up with the thread. I got busy with work and took a look at the the recent posts this morning. So some good discussion for sure. So this is really the bottom line - online sales is extremely competitive, and trust is critical. Trust that the advertised description, photos, shipping and price is accurate. If any of this trust starts to erode there are 100 other places to do business that will perform better. If a BF member did the same thing as SMKW did in this situation in the for sale area they would get negative feedback, and bad sale/trade rating telling other not to do business with that person. Same thing applies in this case. After all this I just cant recommend these guys when other company's are so much more competitive. I will update the thread on the final resolution but as of now I am out shipping, time, frustration and missed out on lots of other end of year sales. Below is where trust eroded - shop at your own risk......

- 20cv Knife was advertised at a reduced "end of year sale" price on the home page as part of the end of year clearance blowout for like 2weeks.
- Email confirmation and paypal confirmation all reflect the 20cv model.
- Base model knife was shipped without any contact from SMKW to tell me of an error or system issue.
- THIS IS THE BIG ONE> When I called SMKW about the issue the 20cv knife was still active on the web page. Before calling me back they updated the exact same page link to reflect the base model making it look/feel like a bate and switch. (I only know this because I had the page open while talking to them). Lucky for me the sale confirmation email reflect the 20cv knife. This is my only proof of my issue.
- SMKW Phone customer service was not knowledgeable or helpful.
- SMKW did not respond to emails until I provided a one star rating on the web page. When they do respond, they don't respond "in line" making conversation tracking difficult and seems shady.
- I asked SMKW if they would honor the advertised knife as everything outside of the SMKW SKU number reflects the 20cv knife. They simply just said "no". No attempt to earn my trust back or keep my future business.
- SMKW has offered no rectification/solution or pre-labeled return shipping label. I was simply told if I didn't like the knife to ship it back. (I did - on my own dime).
- I payed with Paypal and SMKW offers no return process for Paypal payments. Meaning I will have to wait for a check in the mail.
 
Can't you refund the Paypal? They are known for taking the side of the customer in disputes.

I see a fair chunk of legal discussion in this thread. I know how tempting it is to interpret the law. After all, we can all read, right? On the job I've had to deal with lawyers a few times. They aren't always as certain of the law as most laymen are. In practice, the way the law is interpreted by a court can be unpredictable. Lawyers know these risks and are generally very conservative in their approach. My advice: Don't take legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer. There are also a lot of subpar lawyers out there, don't take advice from them either. Only take legal advice from good lawyers. Or, even better, avoid the need for legal advice in the first place.

However, I do have a lot of experience with 'being a customer'. So I feel confident when I say this is just bad service and not very customer friendly at all. Yes, mistakes happen and we shouldn't always immediately hold it against someone. However, if a business makes a mistake, they should do all they can to make sure it doesn't impact the customer. In this case, their mistake turned into a problem for the customer. That is bad form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top