Yes I also filed a dispute with paypal last week. SMKW is yet to respond to the dispute. They also have the knife back as of late last week and have not responded yet.
Not quite. The second part states that simply refusing to sell a good as advertised is prima facie evidence of a violation (intent) of that subsection of the code. In other words if "part B" occurred, it is prima facie evidence of a guilt/violation of "part A".Ok, against my own advice I'll try one more time
The second part of that statute only applies if the first part - INTENT - is proven/a fact . That's why it proceeds that . How can you not get that?
If you don't have part A, then part B is irrelevant.
Ugh .
If you have an example of where you took legal action and got a retailer to be required to sell you a $1000 item for $1 because they made an honest mistake listing it, then please feel free to share.
Don't waste any more of your time and brain cells on this. Not worth it.Ok, against my own advice I'll try one more time
The second part of that statute only applies if the first part - INTENT - is proven/a fact . That's why it proceeds that . How can you not get that?
If you don't have part A, then part B is irrelevant.
Ugh .
If you have an example of where you took legal action and got a retailer to be required to sell you a $1000 item for $1 because they made an honest mistake listing it, then please feel free to share.
That's the thing, trust. This is not the first time smkw has done this. After the price mix up they pulled on me they lost my trust. There are so many dealers, there is no reason to use one you don't trust. Then there is the way they handled their mistake here. It's just bad business. But watch, they are probably reading this. And just like when you got their attention when you left a one star review, because of this thread you will get reimbursed shipping. Good businesses do the right thing from the beginning, not just when they are called out.
If it’s a bona fide mistake, there’s no liability.
Do you understand what prima facie evidence means? Serious question, because you keep repeating it as though it helps your point when it really doesn't.
It is evidence that "on its face" or "at first sight" is enough to prove guilt. Prima facie evidence can be refuted and often is; however, as I said in an earlier post, a retailer will have difficulty refuting this if that retailer, without previously notifying the buyer, provides a product inferior to the one it advertised. That is what SMKW did in this case, and has apparently done before.
Your statement was not correct, which is why folks have challenged it. In VA, as is likely the case everywhere (I’m not reading 50 statutes to confirm), as long as the lower price was posted in error, the vendor is not legally obligated to honor it. This isn’t a case of strict liability. Frankly, the “prima facie” provision sheds more heat than light. The VA statute would operate precisely the same way if that provision wasn’t there. Absence of intent (showing that the price was advertised in error) is an affirmative defense. That would be true with or without the “prima facie” provision.
Indeed. Sloppy drafting. Happens all the time. The point remains, the statute would operate precisely the same way, with or without that provision. That's why I would have left it out. (I'm always happy to discuss the finer points of legislative drafting. It tends to bore my friends
).
All they would need to do to refute it is point out the matching SKU number, and show they had offered a return and corrected the ad. Literally anything to show that it was unintentional and not ongoing would refute the prima facie evidence. That kind of destroys your statement that they would have to be held to the price if they were a brick and mortar store in VA.
Perhaps, but SMKW shipped the lesser item, and only offered a return after being challenged. Makes one wonder if SMKW contacted others they screwed on the deal to offer a refund or are just letting those deals ride if not contacted.
