Any Lawyers? - Are ADs violating FTC Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices?

[lig]

Sidney Powell might take this case.

[erhein]

Originally Posted by lig

Sidney Powell might take this case.

"Just let me win this other case first, then we're gonna make millions!"

[lig]

Originally Posted by erhein

"Just let me win this other case first, then we're gonna make millions!"

[edslee327]

Originally Posted by erhein

I'm a retired lawyer but didn't practice commercial law. I'm going back 45 years to law school for this explanation, so take it with a grain of salt considering I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is a set of statutes adopted by all of the states (I believe) with certain modifications by some states, all retail sales are founded in the contractual context of "offer and acceptance." A contract is created when an offer is accepted. Most people don't think of this consciously, but when we walk into a store and select an item that has a price tag on it, we assume that that represents an offer by the seller to sell that item for its marked price. Then, when we take the item to the cashier to pay for it, that represents our acceptance of the offer to sell it for its marked price. Under the UCC, however, that is not a correct assumption. When a seller (Rolex AD) puts a price tag on an item, it is not an offer to sell the item for that price, rather, legally, it is a solicitation for an offer to buy the item for the marked price. Therefore, when a buyer walks into the AD's store and sees the Pepsi with the price tag on it, the buyer is not accepting the seller's "offer" to sell the Pepsi for that price, thus creating a contract of sale, rather, when the buyer says, "I'll take it," the buyer is "offering" to buy the Pepsi for the marked price. At that point, the seller (AD) may accept or reject the buyer's offer, or enter into a negotiation for the sale. By "negotiation" I mean, agreeing to accept the buyer's "offer" IF the buyer agrees to purchase additional items such as rings, bracelets, etc. That is what legally allows the ADs to put the Pepsi in the case with a price tag on it, but to require the buyer to purchase additional items in order to get the Pepsi at its retail price. That's the legal concept behind it. That's why you couldn't sue an AD for requiring additional purchases. It's also what allows any potential buyer to go into any retail establishment and offer less than the retail price for any item. Keep in mind that this explanation ignores any contractual agreements between the AD and Rolex which might govern the ADs business practices with respect to their sale of Rolex watches. Sorry if this sounds rather convoluted, that's because it is.

Thanks for writing this BTW! this is honestly very insightful. I didn't realize my theoretical question would trigger so many folks assuming i'd sue anyone because i couldn't get a watch