Too Pretty For Prison: I go inside and say I would like a refund. Nope, can't do it.

I'd have argued with them right then and there. If I paid for a car wash, and they couldn't provide the car wash, I'd want them to either give me a refund, or get a damn hose and do it by hand. Selling a product or service that you won't actually provide is fraud.

I see that as quite different from the story in TFA. In that case, I don't think they owe her, but I think they should give her a carwash just for goodwill purposes. And they should kick the lawyer who wants $5M in the nads.

Class action suit = Lawyer gets 5 million, people get one free car wash.

JuggleGeek: Too Pretty For Prison: I go inside and say I would like a refund. Nope, can't do it.

I'd have argued with them right then and there. If I paid for a car wash, and they couldn't provide the car wash, I'd want them to either give me a refund, or get a damn hose and do it by hand. Selling a product or service that you won't actually provide is fraud.

I see that as quite different from the story in TFA. In that case, I don't think they owe her, but I think they should give her a carwash just for goodwill purposes. And they should kick the lawyer who wants $5M in the nads.

It comes down to how bad did I want my $8 back. Back in the day something like that would have set me off, but I've mellowed over the years and $8 just isn't worth getting irate over - plus the girl behind the counter was hot. I figured if I was cool about it she might offer something of equal value - but that didn't work out either.

hippyneil: More responsibility displacement claptrap. If it says "valid for 30 days" it's your responsibility to use it within the specified time period. You snooze, you lose.
Also, surely if it is clearly stated that the car wash voucher is only valid for 30 days, by purchasing the voucher you have entered into a contract and accept the published terms of that contract.
Also, who waits over a month from when they wanted to wash their car to actually wash it?

As stated in the thread already if a contract violates state law is is void... Try reading a little before posting such idiocy.

blackhonda: If it is posted as the policy when you buy, I don't think they have a case

I suppose if your local coffee shop had a sign that stated it was the policy that every purchase comes with a forcible sodomy, you'd be okay with that too? I mean, hey, it's their posted policy, laws be damned.

Flint Ironstag: Why the hell buys a car wash but doesn't use it there and then? This is like ordering a Latte at Starbucks, paying for it and then walking out and coming back 37 days later and saying you want your coffee now.

They are about the same price.....$12

profplump: Sudlow: I just hope we can all agree on kicking the lawyer in the gonads. If not for filing the lawsuit, then just for fun.

Absolutely; that should be a filing requirement for every class-action lawsuit. Plus another kick for each 1% of the award/settlement retained by the lawyers. Kicks to be administered by any member of the covered class, at a time of that member's choosing, without prior notice (subject to approval by the slap-bet commissioner).

Best idea I've heard in a long time.

$5M is the jurisdictional threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act for getting into federal court under the federal diversity jurisdiction statute. I'm pretty sure that the plaintiff isn't claiming $5M damages for her individual claim; her lawyer is claiming that when you add up all the class members' damages together, they are at least $5M. Basically, the lawyer is claiming that there are 417,000 or so people who each got screwed out of $12 or so. $12 x 417,000 > $5M, which means they can bring the case in federal court. Otherwise, they would have to bring it in state court.

CAFA creates some weird situations. Typically, defendant corporations want to be in federal court, while plaintiffs want to be in state court. So often a plaintiff will bring a class action in state court, and the defendant will then remove it to federal court. But this means that in the removal papers, the defendant will have to argue that its (alleged) wrongdoing caused damages of at least $5m, while the plaintiff will argue that there is no way that the case is worth $5m. So to get in to the court of their choice, the parties have to adopt arguments that are contrary to their own interests.

/ csb

Trance750: RussianPooper: Trance750: RussianPooper: Trance750: trippdogg: I think she has a strong case. The only possible reason for the short expiration date is exactly the situation the girl found herself in - the company feeling that people might not get the chance to use it is so short a time. Whether or not the voucher was meant to be given as a gift is utterly beside the point.

She could have used it when she bought it, but chose not to because she didn't want to have to wait in line

So?

Is your head stuck so far up your backside or are you just naturally obtuse?

Are you seriously this stupid that you can't understand that we have consumer protection laws for good reasons? That you don't get to make whatever idiotic rule you want just because you run a business?


Man the stupid is thick in here today.

OK, let me break it down for those who don't have the intelligence to pick their nose, much less anything else.

The car wash provided a services that stipulated it must be used within a stipulated time (30 days). She failed to do so.

She could have used it that same day, but deemed that she didn't want to wait in line.

She stashed the said certificate and forgot about it (hey it happens). But the fact is, it did expire.

Could the store made an exception as part of customer service? Of course.

Are they required to? No.

Based on what, your feelings? MN State law says otherwise.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: I suppose if your local coffee shop had a sign that stated it was the policy that every purchase comes with a forcible sodomy, you'd be okay with that too? I mean, hey, it's their posted policy, laws be damned.

This is the single funniest case of reductio ad absurdum I have ever read. You win 1,000 internets.

I strongly suspect the case will be won in BP's favor over the fact that car wash tokens are redeemable for a level of service, not a value of service. Gift certificate protection laws work specifically because the certificates are for a dollar value, and therefore the company is insulated from changes in price of offering the service.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people advocating turning service providers into banks, whereby you purchase a service for $x and may wait at your leisure until it is worth $y before redeeming.

The idea that a prepayment service voucher should increase in value as the service becomes more expensive to offer (or as a result of simple inflation) is a little hard for me to get my head around, honestly.

Flint Ironstag: This is like ordering a Latte at Starbucks, paying for it and then walking out and coming back 37 days later and saying you want your coffee now.

Actually, it's like ordering a Latte at Starbucks, getting a receipt that says "Here is the code to type into the machine so that the staff makes your Latte; code expires after 30 days," then coming back in 31 days.

You purchased a code that gets you a Latte any time within the next 30 days, but the actual thing you purchased was a code. You only found out about the fact that you had to use it within 30 days after you had already purchased it--there's no indication at the point-of-sale that this caveat was included, and there's no real reason the code should expire except to make people buy another code. At the very least, if it's a technological limitation, the code should be readily swapped for a new one within the 5 year limit.

To put this in perspective, an extreme example would be buying a car wash, then finding out that the code actually expires in 1 minute. There's no real reason for it to other than to screw you out of your money.

So not only is it a de facto gift certificate (it has stored value that in no way goes "stale" and isn't non-transferrably issued to someone), it's also a deceptive trade practice (you're buying a service that the retailer had no intention of providing within the time frame required by law--5 years).

Using the logic that the plantiffs are, beer tickets at concerts as well as movie tickets should be illegal.

SN1987a goes boom: Using the logic that the plantiffs are, beer tickets at concerts as well as movie tickets should be illegal.

You wanna explain how you get one from the other? A movie ticket specifies the time of showing it allows you into, it does not say "good for any movie at any time! (expires after 30 days)," nor does a concert beer ticket promise anything but a beer at that particular concert. Once the concert is over, it's a useless piece of paper. That's not an expiration date, it specifically was for that concert. Had she bought a voucher that said "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" that likely would have been legal because it's paying for that specific service at that specific time, not "pay for the service and use it any time (oops except now it's expired)."

Flint Ironstag: batcookie: SN1987a goes boom: Using the logic that the plantiffs are, beer tickets at concerts as well as movie tickets should be illegal.

You wanna explain how you get one from the other? A movie ticket specifies the time of showing it allows you into, it does not say "good for any movie at any time! (expires after 30 days)," nor does a concert beer ticket promise anything but a beer at that particular concert. Once the concert is over, it's a useless piece of paper. That's not an expiration date, it specifically was for that concert. Had she bought a voucher that said "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" that likely would have been legal because it's paying for that specific service at that specific time, not "pay for the service and use it any time (oops except now it's expired)."

So all BP have to do is change the ticket to be valid for one day, or even one hour, only. Seems odd they are being penalised for giving the customer more choice.
I always assumed those tickets only lasted an hour or so anyway. Who would ever buy one and not use it there and then? Is there a queue? Why wouldn't you have seen that before buying the ticket? Or did the queue suddenly spring up in the few seconds between you buying your ticket and you getting into your car?

They're being penalized because they're counting on people to not read the fine print and lose their money, and because their time limit is illegal to begin with. Someone above already explained this quite well: the law says you have 5 years to cash in your gift certificate, and after 30 days BP has no intention of obeying that law and providing the service that was paid for. That is a prime example of deceptive trade practice.

batcookie: SN1987a goes boom: Using the logic that the plantiffs are, beer tickets at concerts as well as movie tickets should be illegal.

You wanna explain how you get one from the other? A movie ticket specifies the time of showing it allows you into, it does not say "good for any movie at any time! (expires after 30 days)," nor does a concert beer ticket promise anything but a beer at that particular concert. Once the concert is over, it's a useless piece of paper. That's not an expiration date, it specifically was for that concert. Had she bought a voucher that said "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" that likely would have been legal because it's paying for that specific service at that specific time, not "pay for the service and use it any time (oops except now it's expired)."

I'm seriously not seeing the difference between "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" and "good for one car wash within 30 days of purchase." Why would the former be allowable and not the latter?

Dokushin: batcookie: SN1987a goes boom: Using the logic that the plantiffs are, beer tickets at concerts as well as movie tickets should be illegal.

You wanna explain how you get one from the other? A movie ticket specifies the time of showing it allows you into, it does not say "good for any movie at any time! (expires after 30 days)," nor does a concert beer ticket promise anything but a beer at that particular concert. Once the concert is over, it's a useless piece of paper. That's not an expiration date, it specifically was for that concert. Had she bought a voucher that said "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" that likely would have been legal because it's paying for that specific service at that specific time, not "pay for the service and use it any time (oops except now it's expired)."

I'm seriously not seeing the difference between "good for one car wash on the day of purchase" and "good for one car wash within 30 days of purchase." Why would the former be allowable and not the latter?

*shrug* Ask the legislators who wrote the law. That's the way they wrote it.

Flint Ironstag: In what bizarro world is a car wash token a "Gift Certificate"?

Why the hell buys a car wash but doesn't use it there and then? This is like ordering a Latte at Starbucks, paying for it and then walking out and coming back 37 days later and saying you want your coffee now. Or buying a ticket at a cinema and then trying to use it 37 days later.
Frankly I always assumed those vouchers had to be used in an hour or so.

The line was too long to wait. RTA. She probably had somewhere to go. Also, I've purchased car washes with similar schemes only to find they were out of order. Instead of wasting time trying to get a refund it just makes sense to hold onto the receipt and get your wash the next time through the area.

blackhonda: If it is posted as the policy when you buy, I don't think they have a case

Federal and state law trumps whatever policy a business decides to have. This is why a business can't have a "No black people" policy and get away with it. Plus, its wrong. You pay for a service to be used at a later time whether it be a minute later or a few days later. They shouldn't be able to just cash the money having rendered no service.

IanMoone: So now gas stations will have to pull any carwash additions from the pump, meaning any discounts you may get for buying them together will have to go away. You'll have to pay for you carwash at the time you go in.

Why? I don't think the machines were designed to hold five years (or in CA's case, an indefinite length of time) worth of codes yet still be random enough to prevent theft. The ones around my neck of the woods only have 100k unique numbers.

No. They just issue a refund if they can't provide the service due to technological deficiencies instead of pocketing the cash without providing any service.

Earl of Chives: Trance750: RussianPooper: Trance750: RussianPooper: Trance750: trippdogg: I think she has a strong case. The only possible reason for the short expiration date is exactly the situation the girl found herself in - the company feeling that people might not get the chance to use it is so short a time. Whether or not the voucher was meant to be given as a gift is utterly beside the point.

She could have used it when she bought it, but chose not to because she didn't want to have to wait in line

So?

Is your head stuck so far up your backside or are you just naturally obtuse?

Are you seriously this stupid that you can't understand that we have consumer protection laws for good reasons? That you don't get to make whatever idiotic rule you want just because you run a business?


Man the stupid is thick in here today.

OK, let me break it down for those who don't have the intelligence to pick their nose, much less anything else.

The car wash provided a services that stipulated it must be used within a stipulated time (30 days). She failed to do so.

She could have used it that same day, but deemed that she didn't want to wait in line.

She stashed the said certificate and forgot about it (hey it happens). But the fact is, it did expire.

Could the store made an exception as part of customer service? Of course.

Are they required to? No.

Based on what, your feelings? MN State law says otherwise.

Man, the stupid is thick in here today. Was the whole breaching state and federal law thing in the article that hard to understand? This is why gift cards have no expiration date. They used to until they were sued for taking money without rendering service making any agreement void yet still pocketed the cash.

batcookie: This is the single funniest case of reductio ad absurdum I have ever read. You win 1,000 internets.

I have received my voucher (And thank you!) for the 1,000 internets. However, I see it was only good if redeemed within 12 hours.

You can expect my paperwork for my $5 million in the mail any day now.

batcookie: *shrug* Ask the legislators who wrote the law. That's the way they wrote it.

The law you are talking about is for gift certificates, and it doesn't say a damn thing about car washes.

JuggleGeek: The law you are talking about is for gift certificates, and it doesn't say a damn thing about car washes.

Funny, it's almost like we need someone to interpret the law, and determine whether this falls within the definition of a "gift certificate or card" or not....if only the founding father's had thought to set up a branch of government to settle these sorts of questions....whatever shall we do?