If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   Choose your own adventure: You order one iPad as a gift. The big box store sends you five. What do you do with the extra iPads? Tag is for actual outcome   (consumerist.com) divider line 159
    More: Sappy, Choose Your Own Adventure, iPads, Best Buy, proof without words, internet research, gifts  
•       •       •

17172 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Dec 2012 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 10:33:36 AM

Teiritzamna: Well the Consumerist should know that the proposition that "anything shipped to your home is yours" is not actually a legal doctrine. While it is true that under the rules of contract/restitution, you are under no obligation to pay for the mistakenly sent items - which is to prevent old scams wherein someone would send you, say, a tie in the mail and then charge you $50 - if best buy or whomever asked that you sent the merch back, you are under a legal obligation to do so (unless you reasonably changed position such that the disgorgement would work harm upon you - think accidentally spending money mistakenly placed in your bank account because you legitimately believed it was a bonus or some such). Now they have to pay for the shipping and all - but you cant just reply "nope, mine now"


Do you have any citations for that? I'm not convinced that having the "seller" pay for return shipping is enough to prevent companies from trying to run the scam you described. Also, they would have to prove that (a) it was a mistake and not intentional and (b) they're aware they made the mistake (and somehow did it anyway).
 
2012-12-06 10:34:04 AM

iron_city_ap: She should have exchanged one for some one Monster Cables.

/got nothing


Let's be honest here
 
2012-12-06 10:35:41 AM

stonelotus: If You Didn't Order It, You Don't Have To Pay For It


Then how come when an ATM accidentally gives you a giant wad of cash that isn't yours, you get prosecuted if you don't give it back?
 
2012-12-06 10:35:46 AM

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Well the Consumerist should know that the proposition that "anything shipped to your home is yours" is not actually a legal doctrine.

Yeah, saw that line and facepalmed. At least it turned out well.


Well, the Federal Trade Commission seems to think otherwise, and gives out that advice on their website: Link
 
2012-12-06 10:35:56 AM
Foster kids.

/dnrtfa
 
2012-12-06 10:36:34 AM

Jon iz teh kewl:

time is money and everything. but thEYRE OPEN ON THE F*CKING WEEKEND


So she is supposed to waste her time and gas driving to the store when it's BB's fault? I know I like to spend my weekends correcting errors that others make.

/Which is why I'm a weekend Grammar Nazi
 
2012-12-06 10:37:09 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Alexa's boyfriend got an iPad for Christmas from his mother. Well, that's not quite true. His mother ordered one iPad, and had it shipped to him. What arrived on their doorstep was a very large and heavy box that was big enough to hold five iPads. Because it did.
At the core of this story is an ethical dilemma. Best Buy wasn't calling Alexa's boyfriend or his mother to find out where the iPads had gone. The average customer service call-center rep probably doesn't have instructions for this situation in their binder of scripts. Alexa sent off an e-mail, but received no response.

try calling. u shiathead thief


Since we have been talking about trolls this a.m. (another thread), take note Fark, this is a great example (for educational puposes).
 
2012-12-06 10:38:13 AM
I'd send all 5 back and get a refund for the one. Who the hell needs an iPad?

Somewhere, there are four hipsters crying over their iPad-less Christmas.
 
2012-12-06 10:38:40 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: /Fun fact: except for abandoned goods and the law of salvage in admiralty - finders keepers is also not a valid doctrine.

Not so - Finders v. Losers is enshrined in Pierson v. Post. :P

Ahem - if i recall, Pierson v. Post stands for the principle that whomever whacks-off a fox, gets to keep that fox. "Stacy's mom has got it going on" rule


No, no - it's if you lose sight of your fox and someone else finds it and kills it, then let it go man, 'cause it's gone.
 
2012-12-06 10:40:52 AM

Nightenstaff: Oh, I'm sure someone is jobless for the holidays... Accident or not, whoever did this is getting sacked.


If they fired someone over every screwup of this magnitude, there'd be no one left in the American workplace. I know I have personally cocked up to the tune of five figures, and I've never been fired from a job. Mistakes happen. Moreover, in the modern work environment, there are so many points of failure that the finger-pointing would make a web of fingers all pointing at other, smaller fingers.

/fingers all the way down
 
2012-12-06 10:40:54 AM

Silverstaff: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Well the Consumerist should know that the proposition that "anything shipped to your home is yours" is not actually a legal doctrine.

Yeah, saw that line and facepalmed. At least it turned out well.

Well, the Federal Trade Commission seems to think otherwise, and gives out that advice on their website: Link


The FTC advice applies in cases where you have no business dealings with the shipper. If someone randomly sends a case of wine to your house, then you can consider it a gift. If, on the other hand, you order wine and they send a non-conforming shipment, you don't get to say "ha, ha, wine's mine, jackass."
What you can say is, "I reject this shipment of wine, and I'll hold it for 30 days with reasonable corkage storage fees for you to send me a shipping label. Then I'll dispose of it."
 
2012-12-06 10:40:57 AM
I like how even this they got the best possible outcome from Best Buy, Consumerist still tries their best to vilify BB...

"Sure, it probably helps that the eyes of Consumerist's readership were on Best Buy here..."

Yeah if your retarded readers weren't aware, I'm sure BB would have sent goons to this lady's house to retrieve the extra iPads, rape her, and then set her house on fire.

Consumerist = asshats.
 
2012-12-06 10:41:13 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Jon iz teh kewl: Alexa's boyfriend got an iPad for Christmas from his mother. Well, that's not quite true. His mother ordered one iPad, and had it shipped to him. What arrived on their doorstep was a very large and heavy box that was big enough to hold five iPads. Because it did.
At the core of this story is an ethical dilemma. Best Buy wasn't calling Alexa's boyfriend or his mother to find out where the iPads had gone. The average customer service call-center rep probably doesn't have instructions for this situation in their binder of scripts. Alexa sent off an e-mail, but received no response.

try calling. u shiathead thief

Since we have been talking about trolls this a.m. (another thread), take note Fark, this is a great example (for educational puposes).


i'm not a troll. most places have a call-back option instead of waiting on the phone
 
2012-12-06 10:41:23 AM
This isn't "generosity" on Best Buy's part; they don't have a legal leg to stand on and they know it.
 
2012-12-06 10:41:48 AM
If Apple and Best Buy weren't trying to dick you over in everything you buy I would say to return the items, but being that both companies can go to hell I would rather give them to family and friends for gifts.
 
2012-12-06 10:41:55 AM

Nem Wan: stonelotus: If You Didn't Order It, You Don't Have To Pay For It

Then how come when an ATM accidentally gives you a giant wad of cash that isn't yours, you get prosecuted if you don't give it back?


Because the intent here is to keep companies from shipping you stuff you didn't ask for, then billing you for it later, when you never ordered it in the first place.

When an ATM dispenses a huge wad of money, you know that money isn't yours, you're taking it from the ATM knowing you aren't supposed to have it. You are taking the effort to remove it from the ATM and walk off, when you could just leave it at the machine (or immediately deposit it back on the spot, with a note written on the deposit slip that it was dispensed in error)

In this case, somebody ordered 1 iPad. They got shipped 5. The idea is to shield the consumer from suddenly being hit with a bill for $2000+.

The FTC suggests writing them to notify them of this situation and asking them to take the items back within 30 days, and that you'll keep the items after that time. . .but it also notes that response is not strictly necessary.
 
2012-12-06 10:42:03 AM

mccallcl: Nightenstaff: Oh, I'm sure someone is jobless for the holidays... Accident or not, whoever did this is getting sacked.

If they fired someone over every screwup of this magnitude, there'd be no one left in the American workplace. I know I have personally cocked up to the tune of five figures, and I've never been fired from a job. Mistakes happen. Moreover, in the modern work environment, there are so many points of failure that the finger-pointing would make a web of fingers all pointing at other, smaller fingers.

/fingers all the way down


us.cdn1.123rf.com
 
2012-12-06 10:43:58 AM

Silverstaff: Well, the Federal Trade Commission seems to think otherwise, and gives out that advice on their website: Link


Once again - there is a world of difference between purposeful mailing you crap and then demanding payment, and accidentally shipping you something and then asking for it back. The FTC site is discussing the fact that you are under no legal obligation to pay for such goods - which is true. But in the case of a mistake if they demand the merch back, you dont have a legal right to possession.

Now it is true that the party requesting the goods bears the burden of actually showing that it was a mistake, however in cases such as this it seems like its not too hard a threshold for BB to show that they are not involved in a crazy scam to send people $1-2k in unwanted apple products in the hope that someone will pay them for it.

The trick with the law is it is not magic - by that i mean it is rarely a formalist recanting of facts and scenarios without any mind to the circumstances - which alas is the general lay understanding of it. It is generally focused instead upon fairness and reason. I think its pretty fair and reasonable to say that if you mistakenly send someone something they dont just get to keep it, just as it is fair to say that if you purposefully send someone something without request in the hopes that they pay for it, they are under no obligation to pay you.
 
2012-12-06 10:44:04 AM
One for herself, the other four are the dinner plates for the world's most post-modern table setting.
 
2012-12-06 10:44:13 AM
Looks like someone at Best Buy has a brain. As in one person, at Best Buy, has a brain. One person.
 
2012-12-06 10:44:15 AM

Silverstaff: Because the intent here is to keep companies from shipping you stuff you didn't ask for, then billing you for it later, when you never ordered it in the first place.


Note the distinction. Errors in amounts are not the same as "didn't ask for, never ordered in the first place".
 
db2
2012-12-06 10:44:42 AM

kbronsito: i thought in the USA that if you got something in your mailbox that you didn't order, it is considered yours.


Correct. The statute in question is Title 39 USC Section 3009 (disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor paralegal).

Receipt of Unsolicited Merchandise

A key point here is that this is for unsolicited/unordered merchandise. You can't place an order, get the merchandise, and tell the vendor "LOL GET REKT SKRUB". But if you've got a clearly marked and paid invoice for one piece, and receive five pieces, those other four would be unsolicited. In cases where a magazine publisher appears to send you an unsolicited book, and tells you to either pay for it or return it, check your subscription agreement carefully to make sure you haven't agreed to this. If you are confident you haven't, print this page, stuff it in their invoice envelope, and send it back.

Now, I don't know if this legislation applies specifically to USPS, or other delivery services as well (FedEx, UPS, etc.) I'm guessing it does, but I wouldn't base any major decisions on that assumption without getting a second opinion.
 
2012-12-06 10:46:41 AM
i wonder what iTunes would do if you attempted plugging in 5 of them at the same time?? crap out? or continue working.
 
2012-12-06 10:46:56 AM
It's not really an ethical dilemma if, you know, you actually have ethics. The company made a mistake. Send them back and stop trying to get over.
 
2012-12-06 10:49:50 AM

kbronsito: i thought in the USA that if you got something in your mailbox that you didn't order, it is considered yours.


i46.tinypic.com

Now if they just deliver her, no questions asked, I'm golden.
 
2012-12-06 10:51:32 AM
A couple of years ago, I cancelled my service with a dsl based ISP (Acanac you suck). Horrible customer service by the way (part of the story). I had rented the modem so I had to send it back to get my deposit. I sent the modem in, and they sent me a cheque. A signed blank cheque. I could have written in any amount I wanted, and cashed it. Being the nice person that I am I called company "A" and told them their mistake. Their attitude was they couldn't have cared less. Finally, I called the issuing bank, told them about the companies mistake and told them they had 24 hours to correct it, or I'd fill in an amount I thought represented my time and effort to complete the transaction. Company "A" couriered me a cheque the next day and picked up the old one. Only after being contacted by the bank. No "hey, were sorry, we f*cked up". No, "jeez Mr. R, let me fix this right away".

.
..
...
I was going to post a photocopy of the cheque but that's probably not a good idea on Fark.
 
2012-12-06 10:52:19 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: Zasteva: Jon iz teh kewl: Alexa's boyfriend got an iPad for Christmas from his mother. Well, that's not quite true. His mother ordered one iPad, and had it shipped to him. What arrived on their doorstep was a very large and heavy box that was big enough to hold five iPads. Because it did.
At the core of this story is an ethical dilemma. Best Buy wasn't calling Alexa's boyfriend or his mother to find out where the iPads had gone. The average customer service call-center rep probably doesn't have instructions for this situation in their binder of scripts. Alexa sent off an e-mail, but received no response.

try calling. u shiathead thief

Best Buy would probably prefer an email to their support address, it costs them less than a customer support call.

now that's thinking like a criminal


I've helped build technical support infrastructure for 2 large high tech companies. It's how they think. If you want to call them criminal for thinking like that....

Also, under law, she is entitled to keep the free merchandise shipped to her.

/sounds criminal to me
 
2012-12-06 10:53:48 AM

db2: kbronsito: i thought in the USA that if you got something in your mailbox that you didn't order, it is considered yours.

Correct. The statute in question is Title 39 USC Section 3009 (disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor paralegal).

Receipt of Unsolicited Merchandise

A key point here is that this is for unsolicited/unordered merchandise. You can't place an order, get the merchandise, and tell the vendor "LOL GET REKT SKRUB". But if you've got a clearly marked and paid invoice for one piece, and receive five pieces, those other four would be unsolicited.


No, the other 4 are a requested shipment that is non-conforming as to a term (number of items).

39 USC 3009(d) states: "For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It doesn't make a distinction between number of items, but rather the merchandise in general.

Instead, the relevant laws would be (as modified or accepted by the state in question) under the UCC:
UCC § 2-601. Buyer's Rights on Improper Delivery.
Subject to the provisions of this Article on breach in installment contracts (Section 2-612) and unless otherwise agreed under the sections on contractual limitations of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may
(a) reject the whole; or
(b) accept the whole; or
(c) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest.

and
§ 2-604. Buyer's Options as to Salvage of Rightfully Rejected Goods.

Subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding section on perishables if the seller gives no instructions within a reasonable time after notification of rejection the buyer may store the rejected goods for the seller's account or reship them to him or resell them for the seller's account with reimbursement as provided in the preceding section. Such action is not acceptance or conversion.
 
2012-12-06 10:55:00 AM
I would sell the 4 ipods, buy a couple ounces of blow, and snort that shiat off the 5th biatches!
 
2012-12-06 10:57:22 AM

DubyaHater: "Give them to people in need"? Who's in need of an iPad? Oh I know, the Welfare and Medicaid recipients who are "too poor" to pay for food and medical insurance, but buy Coach purses for themselves and iPads for their 5 kids at Christmas.


ಠ_ಠ
 
2012-12-06 10:57:43 AM
I ordered a K&N air filter, 8 iridium spark plugs and 4 sets of brake pads for my Lexus from an online store, stuff wasn't cheap, totaled about $300 for all of it.

They sent it all to me and then the next day I got a duplicate order, but was only billed once.

I called, they said keep it all. That's usually what these places do.

Sure, I'd prefer 4 "spare" iPads, but having all the parts for the next service on the car was nice, especially stuff that really doesn't have a shelf life.
 
2012-12-06 10:59:33 AM
When Madden 2008 (that last version for pc!) dropped down to $10, I used a $5 reward from my Best Buy credit card to buy 1 copy.

They sent me 2 in 2 different packages but I was only charged for 1.


I CAN TOTALLY RELATE TO THIS STORY.
 
2012-12-06 11:01:14 AM
CSB

Had something similar happen last year.

My Grandma ordered my wife and I one Nook Color. Two of them showed up. On the outside of both of the boxes was our address, but the second one had a receipt for someone else inside.

We contacted Barnes and Noble and told them about the mistake. They kept thinking we wanted a refund. We said it was shipped to us in error, but they couldn't understand. They said if we wanted to return it we would have to pay for return postage. We did talk to someone who said they would send us a pre-paid sticker, but it never showed.

After 90 days, I just opened it and have been using it ever since. Rooted NC for the win.

\csb
 
2012-12-06 11:02:30 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: HindiDiscoMonster: Jon iz teh kewl: Alexa's boyfriend got an iPad for Christmas from his mother. Well, that's not quite true. His mother ordered one iPad, and had it shipped to him. What arrived on their doorstep was a very large and heavy box that was big enough to hold five iPads. Because it did.
At the core of this story is an ethical dilemma. Best Buy wasn't calling Alexa's boyfriend or his mother to find out where the iPads had gone. The average customer service call-center rep probably doesn't have instructions for this situation in their binder of scripts. Alexa sent off an e-mail, but received no response.

try calling. u shiathead thief

Since we have been talking about trolls this a.m. (another thread), take note Fark, this is a great example (for educational puposes).

i'm not a troll. most places have a call-back option instead of waiting on the phone


And most people don't feel they have to go above and beyond by contacting the press to help them return expensive items that were sent by mistake.... except thieves (according to you)...
 
2012-12-06 11:03:16 AM

stonelotus: If You Didn't Order It, You Don't Have To Pay For It


Doesn't apply here. He ordered it. They just sent too many.
 
2012-12-06 11:05:27 AM

Theaetetus: db2: kbronsito: i thought in the USA that if you got something in your mailbox that you didn't order, it is considered yours.

Correct. The statute in question is Title 39 USC Section 3009 (disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor paralegal).

Receipt of Unsolicited Merchandise

A key point here is that this is for unsolicited/unordered merchandise. You can't place an order, get the merchandise, and tell the vendor "LOL GET REKT SKRUB". But if you've got a clearly marked and paid invoice for one piece, and receive five pieces, those other four would be unsolicited.

No, the other 4 are a requested shipment that is non-conforming as to a term (number of items).

39 USC 3009(d) states: "For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." It doesn't make a distinction between number of items, but rather the merchandise in general.

Instead, the relevant laws would be (as modified or accepted by the state in question) under the UCC:
UCC § 2-601. Buyer's Rights on Improper Delivery.
Subject to the provisions of this Article on breach in installment contracts (Section 2-612) and unless otherwise agreed under the sections on contractual limitations of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719), if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer may
(a) reject the whole; or
(b) accept the whole; or
(c) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest.
and
§ 2-604. Buyer's Options as to Salvage of Rightfully Rejected Goods.

Subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding section on perishables if the seller gives no instructions within a reasonable time after notification of rejection the buyer may store the rejected goods for the seller's account or reship them to him or resell them for the seller's account with reimbursement as provided in the preceding section. Such action is not acceptance or conversion.


Yup - the point of 39 USC § 3009 is to prevent something akin to mail fraud - it is a postal statute designed to prevent people from sending you tons of crap and then suing you when you do not pay. It is unlawful to do this. It is not unlawful to screw up an order - and, while the people who end up getting the screwed -up order are under no obligation to pay for it, or even be greatly inconvenienced - they also dont have a legal right to the windfall without more.
 
2012-12-06 11:07:00 AM
I don't care what the law says, I'm keeping this kilo of cocaine.
 
2012-12-06 11:08:14 AM

Teiritzamna: Silverstaff: Well, the Federal Trade Commission seems to think otherwise, and gives out that advice on their website: Link

Once again - there is a world of difference between purposeful mailing you crap and then demanding payment, and accidentally shipping you something and then asking for it back. The FTC site is discussing the fact that you are under no legal obligation to pay for such goods - which is true. But in the case of a mistake if they demand the merch back, you dont have a legal right to possession.

Now it is true that the party requesting the goods bears the burden of actually showing that it was a mistake, however in cases such as this it seems like its not too hard a threshold for BB to show that they are not involved in a crazy scam to send people $1-2k in unwanted apple products in the hope that someone will pay them for it.

The trick with the law is it is not magic - by that i mean it is rarely a formalist recanting of facts and scenarios without any mind to the circumstances - which alas is the general lay understanding of it. It is generally focused instead upon fairness and reason. I think its pretty fair and reasonable to say that if you mistakenly send someone something they dont just get to keep it, just as it is fair to say that if you purposefully send someone something without request in the hopes that they pay for it, they are under no obligation to pay you.


On the other hand, as the recipient of unordered good, you are under no legal obligation to spend your time and money compensating for their mistake.

Contacting them to let them know of the mistake is the ethical thing to do. But the burden should be on them to fix that mistake if they care to -- making arrangements with you to collect the merchandise.

IANAL, but if you are going to take a fairness and reason approach then asking their customer to fix the company's mistake doesn't really meet that bar.

It's bad business practice too. The company is very likely to recuperate their losses from future sales to the now very happy and loyal customer, not to mention the value of all the free advertising they are going to get.

See did the right thing, they did the right thing, so where's the fire?
 
2012-12-06 11:10:54 AM
I want to at least TRY to do the right thing. Call Best Buy and try to straighten it out. If I fail to do so after a few hours of work, max, I exercise my right as a postal customer to keep them (sell them).
 
2012-12-06 11:14:12 AM
And once this story is passed around on Facebook, Best Buy will have a rush of ipad orders, with the purchaser crossing their fingers hoping for the same "mis"-fortune.

So, Best Buy will make up those extra units.
 
2012-12-06 11:17:17 AM

Zasteva: Teiritzamna: Silverstaff: Well, the Federal Trade Commission seems to think otherwise, and gives out that advice on their website: Link

Once again - there is a world of difference between purposeful mailing you crap and then demanding payment, and accidentally shipping you something and then asking for it back. The FTC site is discussing the fact that you are under no legal obligation to pay for such goods - which is true. But in the case of a mistake if they demand the merch back, you dont have a legal right to possession.

Now it is true that the party requesting the goods bears the burden of actually showing that it was a mistake, however in cases such as this it seems like its not too hard a threshold for BB to show that they are not involved in a crazy scam to send people $1-2k in unwanted apple products in the hope that someone will pay them for it.

The trick with the law is it is not magic - by that i mean it is rarely a formalist recanting of facts and scenarios without any mind to the circumstances - which alas is the general lay understanding of it. It is generally focused instead upon fairness and reason. I think its pretty fair and reasonable to say that if you mistakenly send someone something they dont just get to keep it, just as it is fair to say that if you purposefully send someone something without request in the hopes that they pay for it, they are under no obligation to pay you.

On the other hand, as the recipient of unordered good, you are under no legal obligation to spend your time and money compensating for their mistake.

Contacting them to let them know of the mistake is the ethical thing to do. But the burden should be on them to fix that mistake if they care to -- making arrangements with you to collect the merchandise.

IANAL, but if you are going to take a fairness and reason approach then asking their customer to fix the company's mistake doesn't really meet that bar.

It's bad business practice too. The company is very likely ...


If you look at my posts - that is exactly what i said. The law doesnt seek to fark over the guy who made a mistake, but it bends over backwards to prevent the recipient - who literally did nothing wrong - from being put out. Under restitution, if the recipients honestly thought they got 5 iPads in the mail legitimately, and gave them away, only to then be contacted by the mistaken business, the law will say "too bad, so sad" because the recipient has, to use the jargon, "changed position."

Generally what happens, if they want the merch back is they send you labels and a box and you put the merch in it and they send a UPS guy to get it.

Now, from a PR perspective - given the mistake in this case and who called them on it, BB did the smart thing and wrote off the error. My beef was with the statement in the article that "Legally, anything that is shipped to your home is yours to keep." You know how standard geeks will get bent out of shape if they hear someone making a stupid statement w/r/t say star wars ("Luke skywalker is a powerful practitioner of magic, known as a sith")? Well it is 10x worse for lawyers and incorrect statements of the law.

/as a lawyer geek its is the worst when someone misstates the law of star wars.
 
2012-12-06 11:17:40 AM
Sappy? I didn't know a shipping error in your favor was considered sappy.

My kitchen is actually clean right now. Lots of paint fumes, but there's no onion or dust in my eyes right now. Now if she had given it to a disadvantaged youth (as suggested earlier in the thread), yeah, that'd be sappy.

But that's cool, I guess.
 
2012-12-06 11:18:58 AM
Some one did a full-case pick instead of an each pick at fulfillment. Usually, the carton ID and shipping ID are matched prior to hitting the shipping sorter. My last company did this because an eCom facility we did had an issue with valid shipping labels being applied to wrong carton IDs. We added a scan tunnel after print & apply to error these cartons out.

Best Buy's logistics be whack.
 
2012-12-06 11:19:31 AM
CSB - Last year I ordered some an American Girl doll accessories for my niece. When the package showed up, the wrong stuff was in the box - duplicates of a previous order I had placed. I called American Girl and expected them to tell me to drop it off at the local store or ship it back, but they told me they would send the correct order ASAP stuff and to please donate the duplicate items to a children's hospital or charity in their name.
 
2012-12-06 11:19:47 AM

bv2112: The thought of giving iPads to people "in need" cracks me up, because there are zero people who need iPads.


Software developers targeting that platform.
 
2012-12-06 11:21:14 AM

clyph: bv2112: The thought of giving iPads to people "in need" cracks me up, because there are zero people who need iPads.

Software developers targeting that platform.


From what I've been told, they are being used heavily in schools...so donate them to schools.
 
2012-12-06 11:29:23 AM

Cupajo: OK, Best Buy's response kind of made them go up a notch or two in my estimation.
Of course, there was nowhere to go but up...


It was the only move to make. Federal law is on her side regarding unsolicited mail. They did the smart thing and publicly announced that she could keep them "in the spirit of the holiday season."

They took a bad situation and spiced it up with PR.
 
2012-12-06 11:31:29 AM

Teiritzamna: /as a lawyer geek its is the worst when someone misstates the law of star wars.


That the so-called 'rebellion' was really a terrorist insurgency against a democratic republic, funded by a constitutional monarchy on a planet with quite literally the biggest income inequality in the galaxy?

/the terrorists also caused a large flying vehicle to crash into a giant structure in which lots of people lived and worked
 
2012-12-06 11:31:45 AM

jfivealive: I would sell the 4 ipods, buy a couple ounces of blow, and snort that shiat off the 5th biatches!


Charlie Sheen, you post on Fark?
 
2012-12-06 11:35:35 AM

RidgeRunner5: Cupajo: OK, Best Buy's response kind of made them go up a notch or two in my estimation.
Of course, there was nowhere to go but up...

It was the only move to make. Federal law is on her side regarding unsolicited mail.


I'm not sure if you could call that unsolicited mail. The person had placed an order with Best Buy. When fulfilling the order, Best Buy made a mistake. There was a business transaction that took place between these two parties. So it was hardly unsolicited.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report