Isn't it dishonest to take advantage of someone's obvious mistake?
No it isn't in certain cases. It's equitable...
I sold my 70-200mm f/4 to buy this, but I only did so after checking with Dell to make sure the IS version of the lens was the one being sold. I told my Dell sales rep that some had stated it might be the non-IS version (Canon part # 2569A004). He left the phone for a minute or so and when he came back, he assured me I had ordered, and would receive, the IS version (Canon part # 7042A002).
At this point I sold, and delivered, my 70-200 f/4 to a friend.
After seeing the screen shot of the Dell sales sheet at I felt quite comfortable again, but after reading several posts insisting that it must be the non-IS version, I called Dell again yesterday at 7:00am pst.
At this point I could have gotten my f/4 back since my friend had not left on vacation yet, and we had made such an agreement. He had a bid in on a f/4 on ebay that was located in our local area, and he had already arranged for pickup if he won (ended yesterday). Since I sold him the lens yesterday morning, and he was not yet the top bidder, he just let the lens on ebay pass away. BTW, it sold for ~$490.00, and I sold him mine for $525.00.
My Dell sales rep put me on hold again, and after returning he once again assured me that I would absolutely be getting the IS version of the lens. This was about 19 hours ago. Since I was going to receive the f/2.8 IS I ordered, I didn't bother to stop my friend from leaving. He's left for Nevada now (actually he's there now)...
I have seen a few suggest that contacting Dell will screw up the deal, but that's not how I look at it. I purposely wanted to know if Dell made a mistake, and for them to let me know if they did. I didn't play hide the weenie with them, and in fact provided as much information as possible for them to find an error if one existed. I did everything I could to apprise them of the situation. They knew I thought they had possibly made a mistake, and they assured me that they had not.
It appears that the basis of the claims of those who are sure that those who ordered will not receive the lens is that it was a pricing error, and Dell either won't or shouldn't be held liable for such.
The screenshot clearly shows Dell's cost at $1174.04. At $1299, thats a nice profit. Not the margin that others are getting perhaps, but Dell's history has been economies of scale and making smaller margins on more products sold.
Now, many people have alsto taken advantage of one (or more) of Dell's advertised discounts (anywhere from 10-20%). I don't believe any of us can comment on Dell's sales policies or business practices, so the decision to honor these is really up to Dell.
There are a lot of assumptions being made, people already making contingency plans, and people reveling in the hopes that others will be disappointed.
Why not just sit back, relax, and wait and see what happens.
I will keep up on what is current at Dell since I have and order in place, and I admit I am playing hardball at this point in regards to wanting to know the facts, but until Dell takes an official stand on these orders there's no reason to worry about it. Once they do, then either the people who ordered the lens will be happy, or the accusations will fly...
Virtually everyone who has ordered this lens from Dell is convinced that Dell has made a mistake in pricing. Many of these same people are already planning on bringing a law suit against Dell if the lens isn't delivered. America--is this a great country or what?
Gochugogi wrote:
Isn't it dishonest to take advantage of someone's obvious mistake? How would you feel if you were the seller and made the same type of mistake? Moreover, to publicly discuss legal methods of forcing Dell to deliver an expensive product at a lost is rather shameful and selfish. Maybe ethics should be taught in public schools...
I tend to agree with that. While I have no adverse conviction ordering the product if they choose to sell at a loss - if they ship, yay me!. I do not feel they "owe" me anything or that I have a right to assert any sort of action; especially being that I haven't been charged anything.
Anyone talking about taking any kind of action or trying to force DELL's hand is waaaaaaay out in left field (don't mind me, I'm sports illiterate).
Think of it this way --------> If you post your camera gear up for sale in Buy/Sell and you hit "Send Reply" w/out realizing you put a decimal point or zero in the wrong place, do you think you should be obligated to sell at a freakin' huge loss after the watchdogs start making offers? Eh, I'm thinkin' not.
\Remembers post in Buy/Sell and rushes back there to check numbers...
I agree.. the great complaint of the past 100 years, "False Advertising", doesn't seem to apply here.. since "false" carries the implication of "intending to deceive" and I don't think this was anything other than a mistake.
After all, what does Dell have to gain from this?
They've done a deal in which 100% of their customers were guaranteed to be pi$$ed off and want their money back.. there isn't any positive here for Dell, so there is no reason for them to have done this on purpose.. it must be a mistake, and therefore it is not "false advertising".. and they are certainly not obligated to deliver on a deal whose terms were mistaken from the outset. They will suffer enough by wasting manhours, refunding money, apologizing, and enduring reputation-spoiling complaints and attacks on the web.
If they DID do this on purpose, they've got less business sense than DeLorean had..
"Isn't it dishonest to take advantage of someone's obvious mistake? How would you feel if you were the seller and made the same type of mistake? Moreover, to publicly discuss legal methods of forcing Dell to deliver an expensive product at a lost is rather shameful and selfish. Maybe ethics should be taught in public schools... "
Ethics is taught, but I am not going to debate my personal moral and ethical beliefs here.
It can be presumed that their pricing will be very aggressive in order to gain a foothold in the market. That being said, I did not order the lens until after seeing the above referenced screen shot. What it told me was that the price was reasonable and, albeit a good deal for me, it was also fair to Dell as they were still making a profit.
I would agree with the above poster that if you have knowledge that the price on something is way out of line, i.e., they were selling the lens for $16.99 instead of $1699, then there are general principles of common and statutory law that allow the merchant to rescind the transaction.
Also, to address another poster's comment about typo errors -- yes, errors such as adding or removing a "0" IN THE CONTRACT do not bind the merchant. Here, however, Dell has not made a typographical IN THE CONTRACT. They orally quoted me a price and their pricing shows up on an internal screen. I have not thought thru all of the legal arguments, but I feel that I could easily thwart a "typo" defense.
Also, it is not "out in left field" to assert a legal right to enforce a binding contract. If someone owed you money, would you not attempt to assert your right to collect if they did not pay?
Anyone check when Dell was going to charge their credit cards? They are also very famous for saying "Won't be charged until shipped"...but
they have done otherwise.
Lets say for argument sake that Dell really is going to sell and ship the 70-200mm 2.8L IS at the ridicules price of just under $1200.00. With the way many of you are acting, such as calling, emailing, threatening law suits, “Playing Hardball” and stirring ups $hit on message boards. Why would they ever want to sell aggressively priced photo equipment in the future? Do you thing any retailer want to do business when it entails dealing with a bunch of sniveling idiot acting like children? Most everyone has admitted that more than likely Dell has made a mistake, so why are you so willing to kick them in the nuts. I love the one post with the guy crying that he has already sold his old lens; like Dell made him sell it! What if you posted a piece of your equipment for sale on Ebay. When creating your ad you type in the wrong price in the buy now section. Let’s say a person clicks on your incorrectly posted buy now price and emails you that you have to sell it to him. This same group of people would be on here posting that this person is an idiot for thinking you could buy this piece of photo equipment that cheap. Plus this same group would be on here posting what an idiot this buyer is for thinking they should have to sell it to him when it was and obvious mistake. Grow Up!!!!!
Let's see, Dell wrote orders for about 500 lenses at a price where they will probably lose $400 each for a total loss of $200,000. Last year Dell's net profit was $598m. Now weighing the $200k loss against the bad will and bad publicity they will get if the canel all the orders, I'm thinking they just may ship the lenses and eat the loss. Only time will tell.
The term "playing hardball" is based solely upon there being a problem with the item ordered.
Considering I tried twice to authenticate the validity of the item price, and was told I would receive the item I ordered at the price I was quoted, I think I should receive it. If I am assured that such a purchase is absolute, then I will feel comfortable enough to sell some of my assets to acquire it. At this point I feel the selling party has an obligation.
I am still not satisfied that Dell is 'not' going to deliver the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lens as advertised. But if they don't, I have tried my best to insure I would know the truth about my 'good faith' purchase, and I expect them to make good on my order. Remember, I sold a lens to buy this lens only after I was assured by Dell that I would receive the 70-200 f/2.8 IS as advertised.
BTW, I am again calling my Dell sales rep as we speak to assess the situation...
With all the questioning of each of the representatives, I have no doubt we'll all get the correct 70-200 2.8 IS lens. I had tried out the 2.8 lens originally. I was amzed by the bokeh and the sharpness but felt it was rather heavy for street shooting. The IS version wasn't yet available.
Then I tried the 4.0. It was just as sharp, light and fitted in my pocket! so, I could use the 50 1.4 or the 17-35 2.8 L on the camera and switch over without needed a camera bag.
When the IS came out I was jealous and wanted that lens bad but felt it was more than I could spend. I put my order in to Dell only when I saw the price and no tax!
For me, the new lens will give me the reach I want with the ability to use higher shuitter speeds and less shake.
Also the lens becomes 98-280 with the x 1.4 extender!
So I plan to keep that 4.0 and will happily await the arrival of the 2.8 IS since to me, I never expected to be able to afford it.... and get my 1Ds or 1D replacement!
One thing for sure, the 2.8 L IS with that knobbly tripod ring doesnt go unoticed in your pants!
I guess I should have gotten angry with B&H last weekend based on what I have read here. They had a used 10D advertised for $899. I ordered it on line and my credit card was charged. A couple of days later I got a phone call saying that there had been a mistake and this camera was actually a D30 and had already been sold to someone else. I was told that I would receive a refund for what had been charged on my card within the next week. I didn’t give him any trouble about it, though I was a bit disappointed that I wasn’t getting a 10D for $899. Maybe I am too nice about these things. There was another case with an online retailer and a 28-135 IS. I think it was new for $269 or some low price like that. Again, after they had charged my card I got a call from someone telling me that it was a mistake (I phoned in this order by the way) and that my card would be refunded. Maybe I should have caused a stink, I might have been able to get a cheap lens out of it.
lordarka wrote:
There are a lot of pessimists on this board.
I agree. Let's see the bright side of things: when they will receive the lenses in february, they will still be shipped overnight to you guys...
Sorry, couldn't resist
Did you call them 'after' you ordered the item because someone had suggested they might have made a mistake, and then have them tell you; 'No. we did not make a mistake. You will get what you ordered at the price we quoted?'
There is a substantial difference between asking to make sure you are covered, and just waiting to see what happens.
I was apprised of the possible problem, I called Dell, and I was told don';t worry about it, you'll get what you ordered. I made financial decisions based upon their statement.
On the B&H order I did not call to ask because the price seemed reasonable to me. With the 28-135 IS I did have them confirm that this was the correct price and product when I placed the order. A few days later they called me back saying that it was a mistake and that they would give me a refund.
Yes, but if you had called them because you had become concerned about the order (for whatever reason) and were told not to worry, and that the order was just fine, and then you made financial decisions based upon this promise, what would you have done? Rolled over and begged?
